Endoscopy Submission Guide: Scope, Format & Tips (2026)
Endoscopy submission guide covering Thieme ScholarOne submission, article limits, clinical-trial registration, video rules, and procedural fit.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to approach Endoscopy
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Define the endoscopy use case |
2. Package | Clarify procedural novelty or clinical value |
3. Cover letter | Frame the readership correctly |
4. Final check | Position against GI rather than general medicine journals |
Quick answer: This Endoscopy submission guide is for manuscripts genuinely about diagnostic or therapeutic gastroenterological endoscopy.
Thieme's current instructions route submissions through ScholarOne at ScholarOne submission portal, with original articles capped at a 250-word structured abstract, 3500-word main text, 6 figures/tables combined, and 35 references.
From our manuscript review practice
For Endoscopy, the first-read question is whether a working endoscopist can see the procedural, diagnostic, or therapeutic consequence from the abstract, figures, video package, and methods without hunting through the discussion.
How was this page reviewed?
Source check, May 26, 2026: this page was reviewed against Thieme's Endoscopy instructions for authors dated 2026, the Endoscopy instructions-and-forms page, the ScholarOne submission route, Thieme journal policies, and the Endoscopy International Open sister-journal page. Public sources verify the article types, word and display limits, video specifications, clinical-trial registration rule, plagiarism check, figure-permission rule, and ScholarOne Submit and Go process.
They do not publish a reliable acceptance-rate or private triage percentage, so this page does not use one.
Run an Endoscopy pre-submission readiness check before upload, or use the checks below manually.
For a fast first pass on procedural fit, run the Manusights readiness review. How this page was reviewed: Manusights editorial analysis identifies three failure patterns across GI endoscopy papers plus official Thieme source checks. In practice, editors specifically screen for abstract, methods, figure, cover letter, and reference-list signals before full review.
Use this guide when the decision is whether a manuscript should enter the Endoscopy process now or be redirected to a closer GI, surgical, image, or open-access procedural venue first. For baseline journal context, see the Endoscopy journal profile.
Concrete source facts used in this update include ScholarOne portal ScholarOne submission portal, original article main-text limit 3500 words, 250-word structured abstract, 6 tables/figures combined, 35 references, and video files capped at 350 MB and 4 minutes; verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a cover letter.
Recent Endoscopy DOI examples checked during this pass include 10.1055/a-2725-1033, 10.1055/a-2779-5957, and 10.1055/a-2794-7551. The editorial criteria states that Endoscopy publishes new developments and therapeutic advances in gastroenterological endoscopy.
We see the same pattern in manuscript-specific diagnostics: a clinically interesting GI study can still be wrong for Endoscopy if the methods and figure package do not make the procedural consequence readable.
What is the real Endoscopy submission decision?
Endoscopy is a procedural journal. The instructions describe it as an international peer-reviewed monthly journal publishing original contributions that report new developments and therapeutic advances in gastroenterological endoscopy. Prospective studies, high quality systematic reviews, innovations and brief communications, and E-Videos all have a place, but only when the endoscopic question is central.
The real submission decision is therefore not "is this gastroenterology?" It is "does this paper change what endoscopists understand, diagnose, do, teach, or evaluate?" A general inflammatory bowel disease, hepatology, nutrition, oncology, or outcomes manuscript with an endoscopic finding as one measure is usually not centered enough. A strong Endoscopy package makes the procedure, comparator, visual evidence, safety issue, diagnostic advance, or therapeutic consequence visible from the abstract and figures.
How do you submit to Endoscopy?
Endoscopy uses ScholarOne Manuscripts at ScholarOne submission portal. The 2026 instructions say authors create an account, access the Author Center, choose the new-manuscript option, and follow the online steps. The journal allows Submit and Go for initial review: authors may upload one single document that includes the title page, main text, tables, references, and figures. At later stages, figures must be uploaded as separate print-quality files.
For E-Videos, the instructions list a separate section and submission site. The E-Video path is useful when the teaching value is mainly procedural video rather than a full original-article data package.
What Endoscopy requirements matter before upload?
Requirement | Official source detail | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
Original articles | Structured abstract up to 250 words, main text up to 3500 words, 6 tables/figures combined, 35 references | The clinical or procedural consequence must be concise |
Systematic reviews | MEDLINE and EMBASE at minimum; PRISMA checklist required | Review submissions need transparent search and bias methods |
Innovations and brief communications | Abstract up to 200 words, main text up to 2000 words, 20 references | Early technique papers still need clear clinical logic |
Letters | No unpublished data; no abstract; up to 300 words and 5 references | Letters cannot carry a new study |
Clinical trials | Registration before enrollment; trial number at the end of the abstract | Missing registration weakens clinical-trial submissions immediately |
Videos | AVI, MOV, and MPG accepted; maximum 350 MB per video; maximum 4 minutes; legend up to 40 words | Procedural evidence needs a clean visual package |
Patient identification | Written consent for identifiable images; personal data removed from images/videos and metadata | The figure/video package is part of ethics readiness |
Copyright | Submitted figures, tables, and videos must be original work; third-party material is restricted | Reused procedural imagery can break the package before review |
This guide tells you what Endoscopy editors look for; the review tells you whether your paper passes that bar before upload. Manusights reviews 1,000+ manuscripts and reports, we do not train models on your manuscript text, and the service includes a 60-day money-back guarantee when the review does not meet the stated deliverable.
Decision risks before submitting to Endoscopy
Across gastrointestinal endoscopy manuscripts targeting Endoscopy, the most useful patterns sit at the intersection of scope, clinical design, and visual evidence. The manuscript can be clinically interesting and still be wrong for Endoscopy if the endoscopic contribution is secondary, unsupported, or hard to see.
Technique novelty is visible but clinical consequence is not
Across procedural manuscripts targeting Endoscopy, authors often show a clever technique, device maneuver, or image sequence but do not explain what a practicing endoscopist should do differently. Endoscopy's stated scope is diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy, and its article categories make clear that procedures, prospective studies, systematic reviews, innovations, and E-Videos need endoscopic relevance. A technique that is interesting but clinically unanchored can read like a method note looking for a consequence.
The manuscript components to test are the abstract, Figure 1, video legend, endpoint table, and cover letter. The structured abstract should make the patient group, procedure, comparator, primary outcome, and clinical conclusion visible. Figure 1 should orient the reader to the endoscopic problem, not only show a still image. The video should demonstrate the procedural step that changes interpretation or management.
The methods should state whether the study is prospective, retrospective, randomized, cohort-based, single-center, or multicenter, and should include enrollment, ethics, consent, and analysis detail. The cover letter should name the diagnostic or therapeutic advance in one sentence.
If the manuscript is mainly general gastroenterology, consider Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, or Gut depending on the evidence. If it is procedurally useful but not selective enough for Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Digestive Endoscopy, Surgical Endoscopy, VideoGIE, or Endoscopy International Open may be better.
Check whether your Endoscopy technique claim has a clinical consequence →
Methods and outcomes cannot support the device or procedure claim
For manuscripts targeting Endoscopy, the second pattern is a mismatch between claim strength and study design. A single-center retrospective series may be useful, but it cannot always support claims about safety, superiority, noninferiority, or practice change. A new device, intervention, imaging approach, or training method needs methods and outcomes that match the claim.
The component-level test is direct. The methods should specify study design, enrollment, study period, intervention, comparator, outcome definitions, statistical analysis, ethics approval, and trial registration when applicable. Prospective studies should explain power analysis when the claim requires it. The results should present primary and secondary outcomes neutrally. Tables should separate baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, adverse events, and follow-up. Figures should show what the technique is and what the result means.
If the manuscript includes a clinical trial, the trial number belongs at the end of the abstract according to the instructions.
This pattern affects venue choice. If the dataset is real but not strong enough for an Endoscopy claim, Endoscopy International Open, Digestive Endoscopy, Surgical Endoscopy, Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, or a disease-specific GI journal may be better. If the data are broad and clinically consequential but not specifically endoscopic, a broader gastroenterology journal may be the better route.
Check whether your Endoscopy methods package supports the claim →
Figures and video package do not make the intervention readable
For manuscripts targeting Endoscopy, the third pattern is visual under-explanation. Endoscopy is unusually sensitive to what the reader can see. A paper can have sound data and still feel weak if the figures, video, legends, and captions do not teach the procedure, diagnostic pattern, or therapeutic step.
The manuscript components matter. The figure set should follow the procedure in an intelligible order. Figure legends should explain the key visual elements without overloading the image. Videos should be cleaned of personal data and metadata, stay within file-size and duration limits, and include concise legends. Tables should not duplicate figures; they should support outcome interpretation. The cover letter should flag the visual teaching value when video or image interpretation is central.
This is also a routing check. If the visual asset is the main contribution and the data package is short, E-Videos, VideoGIE, Endoscopy International Open, or a case-image format may fit better than a full Endoscopy original article. If the data package is strong and the figures/videos teach a clinically meaningful endoscopic advance, Endoscopy remains a credible target.
Check whether your Endoscopy figure and video package is publication-ready →
How should Endoscopy be compared with nearby journals?
Venue | Better fit when | Think twice when |
|---|---|---|
Endoscopy | The paper advances diagnostic or therapeutic GI endoscopy with clear clinical or procedural consequence | The endoscopic component is secondary |
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | The study fits ASGE-facing procedural endoscopy and may have a wider US practice audience | The paper is more European-society aligned or better suited to Thieme sections |
Digestive Endoscopy | The technique, image, or procedural advance has strong fit for that venue's readership | The manuscript needs Endoscopy's flagship international lane |
Surgical Endoscopy | The procedure crosses into operative technique, minimally invasive intervention, or surgical outcomes | The paper is purely diagnostic GI endoscopy |
VideoGIE | The key value is visual procedural teaching | The manuscript has enough data for a full original article |
Endoscopy International Open | The work is sound and procedural but better suited to a more accessible open-access sister route | The manuscript has the selectivity and consequence for Endoscopy |
Should you submit now?
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Submit If
- the paper is centered on diagnostic or therapeutic gastroenterological endoscopy
- the abstract states patient group, procedure, methods, key result, and clinical conclusion
- the study design is strong enough for the claim
- clinical-trial registration, ethics, consent, conflict, and authorship details are complete
- figures and videos make the procedure or diagnostic pattern readable
- the cover letter explains what endoscopists learn or do differently
Think Twice If
- the manuscript is general gastroenterology with an endoscopic outcome added late
- the primary claim depends on a small or retrospective dataset that cannot support the conclusion
- the methods section lacks trial registration, consent, endpoint definition, or statistical-analysis detail needed for a procedural claim
- videos or images include unresolved privacy, metadata, consent, or copyright issues
- the first figure does not make the endoscopic problem visible
- the paper would fit better as an E-Video, VideoGIE item, Endoscopy International Open paper, or broader gastroenterology article
Final checklist before submission
- Rebuild the structured abstract around Background and study aims, Patients and methods, Results, and Conclusions.
- Confirm original-article limits: 250-word abstract, 3500-word main text, 6 figures/tables combined, and 35 references.
- Verify clinical-trial registration and place the trial number at the end of the abstract when applicable.
- Clean patient identifiers and metadata from figures and videos.
- Make the cover letter explain the procedural or clinical consequence, not only novelty.
Before you upload, run an Endoscopy submission readiness check to test scope, methods, trial reporting, figures, videos, and cover-letter fit.
Manuscript status while you wait
If the paper is already in the portal, use the Endoscopy Under Review status guide to interpret the live status label, decide when to follow up, and prepare the reviewer-risk map before a decision arrives.
Frequently asked questions
Submit through ScholarOne Manuscripts at the official submission portal Thieme's 2026 instructions say authors create or use a ScholarOne account, choose a new manuscript, and may use Submit and Go with one combined document for initial review.
Endoscopy publishes original contributions reporting new developments and therapeutic advances in gastroenterological endoscopy, including original articles, systematic reviews, innovations and brief communications, letters, and E-Videos.
Original articles have a structured abstract of up to 250 words, main text up to 3500 words, no more than 6 tables and figures combined, and up to 35 references. Innovations and brief communications have a 200-word abstract, 2000-word main text, and 20 references.
Common problems include a general gastroenterology paper with only a secondary endoscopic component, clinical claims unsupported by design or sample size, incomplete trial registration or consent language, and figure or video packages that do not make the procedure readable.
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.