Annals of Oncology Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

Annals of Oncology enforces its word limits strictly. The editorial system flags manuscripts that exceed the limits.

The 3,000-word limit for Original Articles is tight by oncology research standards. It covers the body text only (Introduction through Discussion/Conclusions), excluding the abstract, references, figure legends, and tables. With clinical trial data, subgroup analyses, and safety reporting, staying under 3,000 words requires disciplined writing. Many authors find it helpful to draft the manuscript first and then cut aggressively, moving detailed data to Supplementary Material.

Short Communications are for preliminary but significant clinical findings that don't require a full article. At 1,500 words, they're extremely constrained but can be a good option for early-phase trial results or interesting case series.

Annals of Oncology requires structured abstracts for Original Articles, Reviews, and Short Communications.

Structured abstract for Original Articles:

• Background: 2-3 sentences stating the clinical question
• Patients and Methods (or Materials and Methods for translational studies): Study design, patient population, intervention, endpoints
• Results: Primary and key secondary results with numbers, confidence intervals, and P values
• Conclusions: Clinical interpretation and implications
• Total limit: 250 words across all sections

The abstract must include specific numerical results. "The treatment improved outcomes" isn't acceptable. "The treatment improved median overall survival from 12.3 months to 18.7 months (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.89, P = 0.002)" gives readers the data they need to evaluate the study.

For clinical trials, the abstract should include the trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov or equivalent). This isn't optional at Annals of Oncology.

Annals of Oncology allows a combined total of 6 figures and tables for Original Articles. This means you need to be strategic about what goes in the main paper versus Supplementary Material.

Figure formatting requirements:

Clinical trial figures: Kaplan-Meier curves should include the number at risk below the x-axis. Forest plots should show the summary estimate and individual study weights. Waterfall plots should include a reference line for the response threshold. CONSORT flow diagrams count as one of your 6 figures.

Table formatting: Tables must be editable (Word table format). Every column needs a header. Include total N for each group. Use footnotes for abbreviations and statistical details. P values should be reported to two or three significant figures.

Color figures: Free for online publication. Print color charges may apply, but this is rarely relevant since most readers access the journal digitally.

Supplementary Material: Additional figures, tables, and data go in Supplementary Material. This is especially important at Annals of Oncology because the figure/table limit is tight. Subgroup analyses, additional Kaplan-Meier curves, and detailed safety tables typically go in supplements.

Annals of Oncology uses the Vancouver reference system, which is standard for medical journals.

In-text citations: Square brackets with numbers in order of first appearance: [1], [2,3], [4-7].

Reference list format:

1. Author AB, Author CD, Author EF, et al. Title of article. Journal Abbreviation Year;Volume:Pages.

Key formatting details:

• Author names: Last name followed by initials (no periods between initials)
• List up to 6 authors; if more, list the first 6 followed by "et al."
• Journal titles abbreviated per MEDLINE/PubMed conventions
• No bold or italic formatting in references
• DOI or PMID included when available

Example:

1. Garcia ML, Thompson RJ, Nakamura K, et al. Phase III trial of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol 2026;37:456-465.

The Vancouver style is different from ACS and Wiley formats in several ways: no semicolons between authors, initials without periods, "et al." after 6 authors, and no bold/italic formatting. Don't mix Vancouver with ACS or Wiley conventions.

1. CONSORT compliance is mandatory for RCTs. All randomized controlled trials submitted to Annals of Oncology must follow CONSORT 2010 guidelines. This means a CONSORT flow diagram, proper randomization reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, and a CONSORT checklist submitted alongside the manuscript. The checklist is reviewed by editors and is a condition of acceptance.

2. ESMO-MCBS grading. Annals of Oncology uses the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to evaluate clinical significance. For studies reporting new treatments, editors may request an ESMO-MCBS grade, and it can influence the editorial decision. Familiarize yourself with the scale if you're reporting treatment efficacy data.

3. Data sharing statement. Annals of Oncology requires a data sharing statement describing whether individual patient data will be shared, what data will be available, and how researchers can request access. This is checked during the editorial process.

4. Ethics and consent. All studies involving human participants must include an ethics statement (IRB/ethics committee approval) and a statement about informed consent. For clinical trials, provide the trial registration number. These aren't suggestions; missing ethics statements result in immediate administrative returns.

5. Conflict of interest disclosure form. Annals of Oncology requires ICMJE conflict of interest forms for all authors. These must be completed individually and uploaded with the submission. The journal takes COI disclosure seriously because of the clinical implications of oncology research.

6. Reporting guidelines beyond CONSORT. The journal expects adherence to appropriate reporting guidelines for all study types: STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, REMARK for tumor marker studies, and TRIPOD for prediction models. Include the relevant checklist with your submission.

7. Word count verification. The Editorial Manager system automatically checks word count. If your manuscript exceeds the limit, you won't be able to complete the submission. Count your words before uploading to avoid last-minute rewrites.

8. Supplementary appendix for clinical trials. Phase III trials and large clinical studies are expected to include a supplementary appendix with the full statistical analysis plan, additional subgroup analyses, and detailed adverse event tables.

An Annals of Oncology Original Article follows this structure:

1. Title page (title, authors, affiliations, corresponding author, word count, running title)
2. Structured Abstract (Background, Patients and Methods, Results, Conclusions; 250 words)
3. Key Message (1-2 sentences describing the main finding; new requirement)
4. Introduction (background and study rationale; keep it concise)
5. Patients and Methods (or Materials and Methods)
6. Results (primary endpoint first, then secondary endpoints)
7. Discussion (interpretation, comparison with literature, limitations, conclusions)
8. Acknowledgements
9. Funding (separate section with grant numbers)
10. Disclosure (conflicts of interest)
11. Data Sharing (availability statement)
12. References
13. Figure Legends
14. Tables (at end of manuscript or embedded)
15. Figures (separate files)
16. Supplementary Material (separate file)

The Patients and Methods section should include: study design, eligibility criteria, treatment details, endpoints and their definitions, statistical methods with sample size justification, and the date range of enrollment. Missing any of these elements will trigger reviewer concerns.

These errors cause the most delays at Annals of Oncology:

• Exceeding the 3,000-word limit (the system blocks submission)
• Using an unstructured abstract instead of the required structured format
• Exceeding 6 combined figures and tables
• Missing trial registration number for clinical trials
• Not including CONSORT checklist for randomized trials
• Missing ICMJE conflict of interest forms
• Using ACS or Wiley reference style instead of Vancouver
• Missing data sharing statement
• Forgetting the Key Message section
• Missing ethics approval and consent statements

For more on publishing at this journal, start with the Annals of Oncology journal profile, then read our Annals of Oncology submission guide and how to avoid desk rejection at Annals of Oncology. For journal metrics, check the Annals of Oncology impact factor page.

For the official guidelines, visit the Annals of Oncology Guide for Authors.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Annals of Oncology, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

ESMO-formatted structured abstract with wrong headings. Annals of Oncology requires a structured abstract using ESMO headings: Background, Patients and methods, Results, and Conclusions. The heading "Patients and methods" (not "Methods" or "Materials and methods") is specific to clinical oncology journals in the ESMO family. Manuscripts using generic abstract headings are returned by the editorial office. The Results section of the abstract must include specific quantitative outcomes with confidence intervals or p-values, not descriptive summaries.

CONSORT or STROBE checklist missing or submitted without page-number citations. Annals of Oncology requires a completed reporting checklist for all clinical trial and observational study submissions, uploaded as a separate file. For RCTs, CONSORT with page-number citations for each item is mandatory. Checklists submitted as blank templates, or with "see Methods" in the page-number field, are returned before peer review. The editorial office specifically checks allocation concealment, blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis reporting for trials.

Basic science or translational study without a direct clinical oncology connection. Annals of Oncology's scope is clinical and translational oncology. Mechanistic studies conducted entirely in cell lines or animal models without a clear translational bridge to clinical practice or patient populations are rejected for scope. The author guidelines specify that submissions must have "direct clinical relevance to oncology practice." Studies that report novel tumor biology findings without framing the clinical implications at the level of treatment selection, biomarker use, or patient stratification are desk rejected.

Single-arm or non-comparative trial presented as practice-changing. ESMO editors are particularly alert to single-arm Phase II trials framed as evidence for changing standard of care. Annals of Oncology publishes Phase III randomized data and high-quality Phase II data with appropriate comparators. A Phase II study in a heavily pre-treated population reporting ORR without an appropriate historical control, or without a predefined hypothesis about the ORR threshold, will receive desk rejection with a note that comparative data are required for practice-changing claims.

SciRev data and documented author experience both point to the same practical conclusion: administrative formatting failures are not cosmetic at Annals of Oncology. The specific rejection pattern is a manuscript that claims clinical importance but arrives with missing checklist page citations, generic abstract headings, or incomplete ethics and data-sharing statements. Editors routinely screen these items before deciding whether the science deserves peer review.

A Annals of Oncology submission readiness check evaluates abstract headings, reporting checklist completeness, translational framing, and trial design against these patterns.