Sexually Transmitted Infections Submission Guide

Describe recruitment, care or community setting, symptoms, testing access, age, sex and gender variables where relevant, geography, exclusions, and missingness without turning sensitive characteristics into stigma. Explain who the evidence does not represent and why that matters to the intended decision.

For partner, network, or contact-tracing studies, state the unit of analysis and dependence structure. For surveillance, show how test availability, case definition, and reporting changed over time.

1. Confirm the current article type and live limits on the official author page.
2. Apply a design-matched reporting guideline through EQUATOR.
3. Reconcile eligibility, consent, ethics, privacy, registration, outcomes, denominators, missingness, and sensitivity analyses.
4. Check that terminology is accurate, non-stigmatizing, and consistent across title, tables, figures, supplement, and patient-facing material.
5. Verify the current submission route immediately before upload.

The journal's author guidelines, read October 10, 2026, set a limit for each article type. The word count applies to the main text only, excluding the title page, abstract, tables, figures, references and compulsory end statements. Manuscripts that significantly exceed the maximum for the article type may be returned for immediate revision before editorial review.

Most systematic, scoping and narrative reviews are commissioned; unsolicited reviews are considered but should be discussed with the Editor before submission. Education articles are welcomed unsolicited and take up to 1,500 words, with up to 3 tables or figures and up to 12 references. Correspondence takes up to 300 words, or 150 words with one small table or figure, and 2 references. Individual case reports are published only if they convey an important learning point, patient permission is required for every patient described, and the journal says it would often advise BMJ Case Reports for those of insufficient importance.

• Ethics statement. Every research article states that the study obtained ethics approval, or that it was not required and why, with the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board, the approval number or ID, and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part.
• Research checklist. BMJ requires CONSORT for randomised trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, EVEREST for economic evaluations, STARD for diagnostic research, STROBE for observational studies, STROBE-RDS for respondent-driven sampling studies and SQUIRE for quality improvement. The completed checklist is uploaded with the submission and labelled "Research checklist".
• Key messages. Original research and systematic reviews carry a box after the abstract, kept to 3-5 sentences and distinct from the abstract. Short reports, reviews and education articles carry a key messages box covering the rationale, main findings, implications and limitations, and remaining uncertainty.
• Minimum statistics. A cohort study reports absolute event rates over time in exposed and non-exposed groups, the absolute risk difference, and a relative risk or hazard ratio, with crude and adjusted analyses and 95% confidence intervals where multivariable models are used. A case-control study reports odds ratios. A diagnostic test study reports sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. A trial reports absolute event rates, relative risk reduction, and the number needed to treat or harm with its 95% confidence interval.
• Related manuscripts. When material from the same study or dataset has been submitted or published elsewhere, say so in the cover letter, explain how the manuscripts differ, and supply the published material as a supplementary file.
• Language. The journal supports the People First Charter and recommends following the UNAIDS Terminology Guidelines.
• Data and identity. The journal follows BMJ's Tier 3 data policy, and every research article needs a Data Availability Statement. The submitting author must supply an ORCID iD.

Per the author page, read October 10, 2026, open access costs 3,760 GBP (exclusive of VAT for UK and EU authors), and publishing in colour for the print edition costs 510 GBP if chosen. There are no submission, page or online-only colour figure charges. Authors can also publish at no cost, and the article is then made available to subscribers. Three licence types are offered, an exclusive licence to BMJ, CC-BY-NC and CC-BY, and the two Creative Commons licences require the charge.

Peer review is single anonymised, and in most instances the journal aims for two external opinions. Authors must not suggest reviewers who are current or recent colleagues of themselves or their co-authors. Authors rejected by the journal are offered a transfer to another BMJ journal, such as BMJ Public Health or BMJ Open. The About page, read the same day, lists an acceptance rate of 37%, 7 days to first decision, and medians of 64 days to first decision with review and 22 days from acceptance to publication.

A new point-of-care test may show high sensitivity and specificity in stored samples. That does not prove usefulness in a clinic. The manuscript should identify the intended setting, reference standard, spectrum of infection, indeterminate results, prevalence, turnaround time, treatment pathway, and consequences of false results. If workflow performance was not tested, describe analytical or clinical accuracy and name implementation as the next evidence step.

We use an infection-to-action trace: pathogen or condition, represented population, measurement, comparison, outcome, uncertainty, and the specific clinical or prevention decision. The trace catches a common problem in which strong laboratory or surveillance evidence is made to carry a broader claim about behavior, treatment, or population impact.

When the trace breaks, the repair is specific: define intended use, add an external setting, preserve indeterminate results, model ascertainment change, narrow the inference, or choose the specialist readership that owns the actual job.

In our analysis of the current official guidance and the manuscript decision implied by it, we found three checks that a generic publisher summary does not resolve. In our editorial analysis, the recurring failure pattern is a cascade jump: diagnostic performance, treatment response, or prevention uptake is presented without the population, reference standard, care pathway, follow-up, or access conditions needed to interpret it. The stronger submission traces who is represented, what decision occurs, what comparator applies, what harm or benefit was measured, and where equity or implementation changes the inference.

Inference jump. Test whether the conclusion moves from an observed result to mechanism, clinical use, or policy without the required comparison and validation.

Population jump. Compare the title, abstract, figure, methods, and conclusion for a change in the represented population, setting, model, or time horizon.

Package contradiction. Reconcile the main claim with the protocol, source files, supplement, data statement, ethics boundary, and cover letter before upload.

Observational studies can use the STROBE explanation; trials should check CONSORT 2010; systematic reviews should check PRISMA 2020. Apply only the guideline that matches the design, and confirm the journal's current article-type requirements separately.

This source-backed synthesis cannot predict acceptance or editorial priority. It identifies a manuscript-level decision that the publisher instructions do not make for an author.