The Journal of ISAKOS (JISAKOS) is the official journal of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. The journal publishes high-quality peer-reviewed review articles from the international community of orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians. The journal covers important topics that serve to engage and advance the knowledge and treatment of musculoskeletal diseases and disorders among specialists and other interested health professionals.
JISAKOS adheres to the highest standards concerning its editorial policies on publication ethics and scientific misconduct. consent and peer review criteria. The journal follows guidance produced by bodies that include the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). To view all BMJ Journal policies, please refer to the BMJ Author Hub policies page.
Every research article, including every submitted article involving human participants, requires a statement of ethical or institutional review board approval within the manuscript text. Furthermore, a formal letter of ethical or institutional review board approval must be uploaded along with the manuscript files at initial submission.
Authors are required to submit a statement that their study obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it was not required and why) and that participants gave informed consent. Our Editors will consider whether the work is morally acceptable as determined by the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki.
In addition to this, in line with General Medical Council guidelines, an article that contains personal medical information about an identifiable living individual requires patients explicit consent (in the format of a signed BMJ patient consent form) before we will publish it. Furthermore, a formal letter of ethical or institutional review board approval must be uploaded along with the manuscript files at initial submission. Please
To make the best decision on how to deal with a manuscript, JISAKOS needs to know about any competing interests authors may have; this includes any commercial, financial or non financial associations that may be relevant to the submitted article. Authors must download and complete a copy of the ICMJE Conflict of Interest disclosure form.
JISAKOS requires that all advertising and sponsorship associated with the journal does not influence editorial decisions, is immediately distinguishable from editorial content and meets all other BMJ guidelines. Please find more information about competing interests and a link to the form.
We take seriously all possible misconduct. If an Editor, author or reader has concerns that a submitted article describes something that might be considered to constitute misconduct in research, publication or professional behaviour they should forward their concerns to the journal. The publisher will deal with allegations appropriately following ICMJE and COPE guidelines. Corrections and retractions are considered where an article has already been published; corrections, expressions of concern or a retraction notices will be published as soon as possible in line with the BMJ correction and retraction policy.
JISAKOS adheres to the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition of open access and a licence. Any open access articles accepted by the journal are published under an exclusive licence or non-exclusive licence for UK Crown employees or where BMJ has agreed CC BY applies. For US Federal Government officers or employees acting as part of their official duties, the terms are as stated in accordance with our licence terms. Authors or their employers retain copyright. Such open access articles can be reused under the terms of the relevant Creative Commons licence to facilitate reuse of the content.
Please visit the BMJ Author Hub for more information on copyright and authors’ rights.
As the author you may wish to post your article in a PrePrint service, institutional or subject repository or a scientific social sharing network. For more information on author self archiving and rights to reuse content – which are dependent on the licence you have obtained – please refer to the BMJ author self archiving and permissions policies page.
JISAKOS levies an Article Processing Charge (APC) of $3,000 USD for open access articles. There are no submission, colour or page charges. No payment information is requested before an article is accepted, so the ability to pay cannot affect editorial decisions. Accepted articles will not be published until payment has been received. BMJ does not refund APCs once paid.
As one of the founding members of the HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme, we provide free access to all of our journals, and journals archive to local, not-for-profit institutions in low income countries.
In addition, we appreciate that some authors do not have access to funding to cover publication costs and we offer waivers through our Open Access Waiver Fund. We will accept part payment where only limited funds are available, and we offer waivers to authors in exceptional circumstances, on request.
For more information on open access, funder compliance, discounts and waivers please refer to the BMJ Author Hub open access page.
All articles submitted to JISAKOS are subject to peer review. Original research, systematic reviews, and the Classic are predominantly unsolicited; state-of-the-art reviews and current concepts reviews are mainly commissioned.
JISAKOS uses double-blind peer review, which requires authors to submit two versions of their manuscript file:
Version 1 (To Be Uploaded as the Manuscript File): This file should be anonymous and should NOT include:
- Any author names
- Author institution details
- Author contact details
- Competing interests (if declared)
- Ethical approval statements that refer to your institution
This file will be automatically converted to a PDF once uploaded through our online submission system (ScholarOne) and will be made available to the reviewers.
Version 2 (To Be Uploaded as a Supplemental File): This file should include the manuscript text and all the information omitted from Version 1:
- Full author name and institutions
- Competing interests (please list as “none declared” if not applicable)
- Ethics approval statements
This file will only be accessed by the Editor and Editorial Staff.
BMJ is committed to transparency. Every article we publish includes a description of its provenance (commissioned or not commissioned) and whether it was internally or externally peer reviewed.
BMJ requests that all reviewers adhere to a set of basic principles and standards during the peer- review process in research publication; these are based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Please refer to our peer review terms and conditions policy page.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of the language, ideas or thoughts of another without crediting their true source and representation of them as one’s own original work. BMJ is a member of CrossCheck by CrossRef and iThenticate. iThenticate is a plagiarism screening service that verifies the originality of content submitted before publication. BMJ runs manuscripts through iThenticate during the peer review process. Authors, researchers and freelancers can also use iThenticate to screen their work before submission by visiting www.ithenticate.com.
Reader responses, questions and comments to published content is welcomed by JISAKOS; these should be submitted electronically via the journals website. Please find further details on how to publish a response and the terms and requirements.
Journal of ISAKOS adheres to BMJ’s Tier 3 data policy. We strongly encourage that data generated by your research that supports your article be made available as soon as possible, wherever legally and ethically possible. All research articles must contain a Data Availability Statement.
For more information and FAQs, please see BMJ’s full Data Sharing Policy page.
JISAKOS mandates ORCID iDs for the submitting author at the time of article submission; co-authors and reviewers are strongly encouraged to also connect their ScholarOne accounts to ORCID. We strongly believe that the increased use and integration of ORCID iDs will be beneficial for the whole research community.
Please find more information about ORCID and BMJ’s policy on our Author Hub.
Please review the below article type specifications including the required article lengths, illustrations, table limits and reference counts. The word count excludes the title page, abstract, tables, acknowledgements, contributions and references. Manuscripts should be as succinct as possible.
For further support when making your submission please refer to the resources available on the BMJ Author Hub. Here you will find information on writing and formatting your research through to the peer review process and promoting your paper. You may also wish to use the language editing and translation services provided by BMJ Author Services.
If your article is accepted you can take advantage of BMJ’s partnership with Kudos, a free service to help you maximise your article’s reach.
Manuscripts must be written in American English. The entire text should be double-spaced, including references. Multiple-part papers are discouraged. Although this arrangement is sometimes necessary, authors will often be asked to collapse multiple papers into a single manuscript.
In short, authors should adhere to the following principles:
- Use direct, active-voice sentences
- Limit prepositional phrases
- Limit use of the verb “to be”
- Avoid noun forms of verbs (nominalizations)
- Limit noun strings (nouns modifying nouns)
- Put new and important information toward the end of sentences
JISAKOS uses a slightly modified version of Vancouver referencing style (see example below). The style template is available via EndNote. Please make sure that the References are double-spaced and no (automatic) listing formats are used like, for example, bullets or numbers.
JISAKOS Reference Style
List the names and initials of all authors if there are six or fewer; otherwise list the first three and add “et al”. Use one space only between words up to the year and then no spaces. The journal title should be in italics and abbreviated according to the style of Medline. If the journal is not listed in Medline, then it should be written out in full.
JISAKOS publishes original research on surgical and/or non-surgical interventions, diagnostic procedures, rehabilitation, prevention and other topics in the journal’s key fields of interest.
An original article is about 3,000 words long (excluding abstract, figure captions, tables and references) and includes up to 50 references.
The maximum number of tables and/or figures is six. Additional data may be presented as supplementary information, which will be published online at the time of online publication.
The title should contain a concluding statement on the primary finding of the study, expressing the most important finding of this study according to the author.
The abstract is up to 350 words. It contains as headings Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusion and the level of evidence according to this table.
For certain studies, like but not limited to laboratory experiments and model simulations, the level-of-evidence statement does not apply. A text box, titled “What are the new findings?”, should follow the abstract and contain 3-4 bullet points summarising the new findings.
The paper contains the sections Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. A short introduction suffices if the rationale of the study is obvious, i.e. it may be as short as 3 short paragraphs if that addresses “Why the study was performed”. An extensive literature review will not be accepted. The use of subheadings in the methods, results and discussion is encouraged, thereby itemising different aspects of each respective section.
A relevant reporting checklist must be completed and uploaded.
The checklist to be used depends on the kind of research reported. If your manuscript does not belong to any of these categories, a checklist is not required.
CARE – Case reports
CHEERS – Economic evaluations
CONSORT – Randomised controlled trials
PRISMA – Systematic reviews and meta-analysis
STARD – Diagnostic accuracy studies
STROBE – Observational studies
A Current concepts review is invited by the Editor-in-Chief with input from the Editorial Board.
A Current concepts review addresses a single issue of an intervention or a diagnostic procedure for a certain condition. It contains statements of current knowledge, practice and recent evidence, with references to relevant papers as well as detailed descriptions of surgical techniques, patient management strategies, and/or diagnostic methods as appropriate.
At the end of the Current concepts review, authors conclude on the current best practice based on the best available evidence and describe what is required for better supporting the technical choices in the future.
A paper should be about 3,000 words (excluding abstract, figure captions, tables and references) and include up to 50 references. It should include an unstructured abstract of no more than 350 words. The number of tables and figures is limited to eight.
A Current concepts review must include the following:
The title should contain the topic addressed followed by “:current concepts”.
Clinical problem statement, current diagnostic and therapeutic methods, available evidence and current unsolved issues. The abstract should be complete, concise and attractive to read.
- Outline of the clinical problem
- References to previous reviews, state-of-the-art and/or current concepts articles
- The topic covered by this article
- Include informative subheadings to separate different subtopics
- Figures illustrating (special) diagnostic procedures and/or surgical techniques or other interventions with explanatory text are preferred over text-only descriptions.
- Summarise the major issues and solutions
- Discuss the current (lack of) evidence
- If applicable, describe alternative approaches with references to relevant publications
- Discuss the future perspectives
The online version of the Current concepts review may contain supplemental material, like descriptions, photos and materials detailing the specific procedures as described in the article.
Mandatory Text Boxes
Include two text boxes:
- Title: “Current concepts”
Contents This box contains bullet points containing the enumeration of the current concepts as described in the article
- Title: “Future perspectives”
Contents Describe future perspectives on the topic of the article. Elaborate on the research that is required to reach the formulated goals.
JISAKOS publishes systematic reviews on surgical and/or non-surgical interventions in the journal’s key fields of interest. Quality reporting is important to JISAKOS and a systematic review must follow the PRISMA guidelines. While systematic reviews will be invited by the Editor-in-Chief with input from the Editorial Board, a manuscript can also be submitted without invitation.
Generally, systematic reviews are 4,000 words (excluding abstract, figure captions, tables and references) and will have 75-100 references. Authors should attempt to synthesise results either quantitatively or qualitatively.
The title should contain a concluding statement on the primary finding of the review followed by either “a systematic review” or “a meta-analysis”.
- Include one or two sentences describing the clinical question or issue and its importance in clinical practice or public health.
Aim or Objective
- State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed.
- Describe the information sources used, including summary of the search strategies, years searched, and other sources of material, such as subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. Methods used for quality assessment and inclusion of identified articles should be explained. Describe the methods of qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data retrieved from the articles.
- The major findings of the review of the clinical issue or topic should be addressed in an evidence-based, objective, and balanced fashion, with the highest quality evidence available receiving the greatest emphasis.
Conclusions and Relevance
- The conclusions should clearly answer the questions posed if applicable, be based on available evidence, and emphasize how clinicians should apply current knowledge.
Level of Evidence
- Add the level of evidence according to this table.
Immediately following the abstract add a text box containing two sets of bullet points.
- Title: “What is already known”
Contents One or two single sentence bullet points to summarise what is already known about the subject before this review commenced and what has necessitated this review.
- Title: ”What are the new findings”
Contents Two to four bullet points summarising what the new findings are based on the results of the review or meta-analysis.’ Be clear and specific in formulating the bullet points. The total maximum number of bullet points is six.
The body of the manuscript should contain the headers Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion.
The review should be conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.
For the introduction, methods, results and discussion use the PRISMA checklist as a reference.
Include a flow diagram according to the PRISMA guidelines depicting the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. The PRISMA document can be used for this. The flow diagram should be submitted in editable format (Microsoft Word, Visio or PowerPoint).
A State of the art review is invited by the Editor-in-Chief with input from the Editorial Board. It is generally written by a three-author team, with authors drawn from three major regions of the world, to ensure a truly global perspective. The author team can be supplemented by a fourth author that assists in drafting the manuscript.
A State of the art review contains statements of current knowledge, practice and evidence, with references to relevant and recent papers as well as detailed descriptions of surgical techniques, patient management strategies, and/or diagnostic methods as appropriate.
At the end of each State of the art review, authors describe the future perspectives on the development of diagnosis and treatment, given the best available evidence. Authors then elaborate on the basic and applied research required and provide a statement on where the field will be in three to five years.
Papers should be about 6,000 words (excluding abstract, figure captions, tables, text boxes and references) and include up to 100 references. Papers should include an unstructured abstract of no more than 350 words. You should include as many illustrative boxes and tables as necessary. Boxes are not cited within text, but tables are cited. Boxes can include pearls and pitfalls and any other information that is important to call attention to the reader. Likewise, authors are encouraged to include as many figures as necessary to convey the article’s topic.
All State of the art reviews must include the following:
The title should contain the topic followed by “: state of the art”.
- Clinical problem statement, current diagnostic and therapeutic methods, geographic variations, available evidence, current unsolved issues, future perspectives
- The abstract should be complete, concise and attractive to read
- Outline of the clinical problem, and the societal impact
- References to previous reviews, state-of-the-art or current concepts articles
- Topics covered by this article
- Key information on the topic represented in a figure or table
- Informative subheadings to separate different topics and subtopics
- Topic or subtopics that require particular attention can be supplemented by a text box. A text box should be read and understood without referring to the main body of text
- Figures illustrating (special) diagnostic procedures and/or surgical techniques with explanatory text are preferred over text-only descriptions.
- Attention should be paid to geographical differences and the (possible) explanations for these. This can be done in a separate section.
Mandatory Text Boxes
- Title: “Key articles”*
Contents A list of the ten key articles representing the historic evolution on the topic as identified by the authors.
- Title: “Validated outcome measures and classifications”*
Contents Validated outcome measures that apply to the topics described in the article. Indicate the ones that are ISAKOS approved or preferred by the authors.
- Title: “Key issues of patient selection”
Contents Key issues for the particular treatment(s)
- Title: “Essential and/or typical features of [the medical device(s) and/or imaging device(s) and/or measurement device(s) and/or diagnostic/surgical procedures]”
Contents If applicable, describe the essential and/or typical features of the medical devices (tools, implants, biomaterial etc.), imaging and measurement devices and/or diagnostic/surgical procedures that are applied. Include the criteria for the selection of these. Additionally, the rationale for the diversity of medical devices and diagnostic procedures should be addressed.
- Title: “Tips & tricks”*
Contents Tips and tricks on the main surgical, diagnostic, and/or rehabilitation procedures described in the article.
- Title: “Major pitfalls of [topic(s)]”
Contents The major pitfalls of the techniques and/or procedures described in the article.
* Box title can be supplemented by additional explanatory text, as for example the topic covered by the information in the box.
Future Perspectives (Conclusion)
- Recap the best available evidence and describe future perspectives on the development of diagnosis and treatment. Elaborate on the basic and applied research that is required. Include information on where the field will be in three to five years.
- Include a text box, table or figure to highlight the future perspectives, such that it can be read and understood without reading the main body of text.
The Classic takes a historical approach to a major concept or technique, with abundant references to the literature. This article type puts classic ideas into current perspective, whether they are now central to orthopaedics or have receded into lesser utility. This article is approximately 4,500-5,000 words in length and includes maximally 100 references.
The Classic describes the content of the article, with reference to the original source, thus integrating summary, text samples, figures or tables of the original article in consideration of the historic perspective, and the impact of the article on the course of history.
The Classic articles must include the following:
The title should be constructed as follows:
- Review of [Family name(s) of original author(s)] on [title or summary of title or title highlights]
- The abstract starts with “This classic discusses the original publication [Original Reference] on [one- to two-line summary of The Classic]”, followed by a summary of the introduction and consideration.
- Description of the classic article and the rationale for selecting this as The Classic topic
- Text box containing a summary of the classic (maximum 350 words)
- Historic perspective
- Scientific and societal impact
- Current evidence as related to the original article
- The lesson(s) learned
Optional Text Boxes
- Add text boxes containing the summary of any personal communications like an interview, comments and/or quote(s) from the original (co)author(s) or other individuals. These text boxes should be short and contain no more than 300 words.
- At the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, an additional box with the Editor’s note will be added at the end of the article. This can be a comment from the Editor-in-Chief or a comment from a member of the Editorial Board. This will be done after the acceptance of the manuscript.
A Case report describes a single unusual or special case from which a lesson is learnt. It is a clinical observation from daily practice. A case report should teach us what is unknown and which discloses the unrecognised. A case report should stand alone and be convincing. Case series are not considered. Up to three similar cases are allowed, if these additional cases add to the particular issue that is addressed by the case report.
JISAKOS wishes to publish cases that stimulate discussion and even dispute, cases with clinical significance, whether diagnostic, or ethical, or therapeutic; cases that deal with decision making or management or cases that shed light on injury mechanisms. Above all, the journal prioritises cases that show something new or puzzling.
The maximum number of authors is four and should include at least one author that was medically responsible for the patient(s) described. Individuals involved in the patient’s care but did not contribute to the scientific analysis of the case and the writing of the manuscript can be listed in the acknowledgements.
A paper should be about 3,000 words (excluding abstract, text boxes, figure captions, tables and references) and include up to 30 references. It should include an unstructured abstract of no more than 350 words. The maximum number of tables is three. The number of figures and/or illustrations is limited to the number that is logically required to illustrate the case. After submission of the manuscript, the editor may instruct the authors to reduce the number of figures/illustrations. Additional figures/illustrations, slide shows, videos and/or animations can be submitted for on-line publication.
The patient(s) described in the case report should be fully anonymized. Patient characteristics, clinical data and clinical images should be modified such that these cannot be traced back to the particular individual. The authors should fully comply with the policy on patient consent and confidentiality.
A Case report must include the following:
The title should contain a brief description of the case followed by “: case report”.
Short description of the most relevant characteristics of the presentation of the case, the diagnostics, intervention and outcome with a summary of the critical analysis of how it relates to current practice. Describe the lesson(s) learnt. The abstract should be complete, concise and attractive to read.
Mandatory Text Boxes
Directly following the abstract, include two text boxes:
- Title: “The case”
Contents This box contains 3 to 5 bullet points with the major issues of the presentation of the case, the intervention and the outcome.
- Title: “Lesson(s) learnt”
Contents This box contains 1 or 2 bullet points describing the lesson(s) learnt from the analysis of the case.
- Brief description of how the patient was presented and how the problem deviated from general practice, c.q. current approaches
- Reasoning of why it is a special case that requires attention
- Provide a concise overview of the literature as to make clear that this has never been published before. Mention your search strategy.
Use logical sub headers to separate the different sub sections.
- Full detailed (relevant) medical history and clinical description
- Physical examination(s)
- Additional examination(s) (lab, imaging etc.)
- Summarise clinical problem and the key issues of the case described.
- Discuss the issues in view of the current literature.
- Describe the potential relative to the current approaches with references to relevant publications.
For online publication additional figures or illustrations, a slide show, animation and/or video can be uploaded.
A Technical note describes a new surgical or conservative intervention or a new diagnostic technique or that is tested experimentally or in a small clinical series.
A paper should be about 3,000 words (excluding abstract, figure captions, tables and references) and include up to 50 references. It should include an unstructured abstract of no more than 350 words. The maximum number of tables is three. The number of figures and/or illustrations is limited to the number that is logically required to convey the methodology described. Where possible videos and/or animations should be submitted for on-line publication.
A Technical note must include the following:
The title should contain a short description of the new method followed by “: technical note”.
Clinical problem statement, current diagnostic or therapeutic methods for the particular clinical problem, the new solution and preliminary results and discussion of the potential of the new technique. The abstract should be complete, concise and attractive to read.
Mandatory Text Boxes
Directly following the abstract, include two text boxes:
- Title: “Current techniques”
Contents This box contains bullet points summarizing the current techniques as outlined in the introduction.
- Title: “New technique”
Contents This box contains bullet points describing the essential features of the new technique with focus on the particular novelty.
- Outline of the clinical problem
- Current solutions, outcomes and limitations
- Issue(s) currently not addressed
- Novelty of the new technique
- Provide a concise overview of the literature as to make clear that this technique has never been published before. Mention your search strategy.
- Include informative subheadings to separate different subtopics
- Brief description of how the technique deviates from current approaches
- Reasoning of why this technique requires attention.
- Adequate description of the new technique
- Figures illustrating the new intervention or diagnostic method with explanatory text
- Description of the proof-of-concept by an experiment or small clinical series
- Summarise clinical problem that is addressed and the solution provided by the new technique
- Discuss the method by which the technique should be evaluated
- Describe the potential relative to the current approaches with references to relevant publications
- Discuss the future potential of the new technique relative to the current technique(s)
For online publication a slide show, animation and/or video outlining and detailing the technique is required.
The BMJ Publishing Group journals are willing to consider publishing supplements to regular issues. Supplement proposals may be made at the request of:
- The journal editor, an editorial board member or a learned society may wish to organise a meeting, sponsorship may be sought and the proceedings published as a supplement.
- The journal editor, editorial board member or learned society may wish to commission a supplement on a particular theme or topic. Again, sponsorship may be sought.
- ISAKOS itself may have proposals for supplements where sponsorship may be necessary.
- A sponsoring organisation, often a pharmaceutical company or a charitable foundation, that wishes to arrange a meeting, the proceedings of which will be published as a supplement.
In all cases, it is vital that the journal’s integrity, independence and academic reputation is not compromised in any way.
For further information on criteria that must be fulfilled, download the supplements guidelines.
When contacting us regarding a potential supplement, please include as much of the information below as possible.
- Journal in which you would like the supplement published
- Title of supplement and/or meeting on which it is based
- Date of meeting on which it is based
- Proposed table of contents with provisional article titles and proposed authors
- An indication of whether authors have agreed to participate
- Sponsor information including any relevant deadlines
- An indication of the expected length of each paper Guest Editor proposals if appropriate