The nine article types our journals publish — with the definition, typical structure, and peer-review model for each.
Directive Publications' family of around 96 open-access journals welcomes a range of scholarly article types across medicine, the life sciences, and public health. Whatever its type, every accepted article is published open access under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence — authors retain copyright — receives a Crossref-registered DOI (prefix 10.52338), and is handled in line with COPE Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations. The specific types a journal accepts can vary, so please also check the individual journal's page before you submit.
Each article type below is described using the same three-part pattern so the page reads as one consistent system: (a) a short definition, (b) its typical structure, and (c) the type of review it receives. Our review model is double-blind: where an article receives external peer review, author and reviewer identities are mutually concealed (see Peer Review). The table below summarises the nine types at a glance; fuller descriptions follow.
| Article type | Review received | Applicable reporting guideline |
|---|---|---|
| Original Research | Full external double-blind peer review | CONSORT (RCTs), STROBE (observational), STARD (diagnostic) |
| Review Article | Full external double-blind peer review | — |
| Systematic Review & Meta-analysis | Full external double-blind peer review | PRISMA (checklist + flow diagram) |
| Case Report | External double-blind peer review | CARE |
| Case Series | External double-blind peer review | STROBE (where relevant) |
| Short Communication / Brief Report | Full external double-blind peer review | Per study design (EQUATOR) |
| Editorial | Editorial review | — |
| Commentary / Perspective | Editorial review (external input at editor's discretion) | — |
| Letter to the Editor | Editorial review | — |
Definition. A complete report of an original primary study presenting new data and findings.
Typical structure. IMRaD — title, abstract, keywords, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion, followed by references. Authors should follow the applicable EQUATOR Network reporting guideline for their design — for example CONSORT for randomised trials or STROBE for observational studies.
Review. Full external double-blind peer review by qualified experts. Length is guided at roughly 4,500–5,000 words; see the Author Guidelines for the definitive limits.
Definition. A narrative, expert critical synthesis of a topic — distinct from a systematic review in that its search and selection are not exhaustively pre-specified.
Typical structure. A structured argument organised into thematic sections, supported by a comprehensive, current reference list.
Review. Full external double-blind peer review. Length is guided at roughly 4,000–5,000 words; see the Author Guidelines.
Definition. A study that answers a pre-specified question using explicit, reproducible methods for searching, selecting, and appraising the evidence. A meta-analysis adds a quantitative synthesis of results where the data allow.
Typical structure. A completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram are required, together with a Methods section describing the full search strategy and eligibility criteria. We encourage protocol registration (for example in PROSPERO), with the registration number stated in the abstract.
Review. Full external double-blind peer review. Because length depends on scope and the number of included studies, we describe it qualitatively — please contact the editorial office or check the target journal's page rather than assuming a fixed word count.
Definition. A single, instructive clinical case placed in the context of the existing literature.
Typical structure. Introduction, Case presentation, Discussion, and Conclusion, following the CARE guideline. Documented patient informed consent for publication is required, including consent for any identifiable images.
Review. External double-blind peer review. Length is guided at roughly 1,200–1,600 words; see the Author Guidelines.
Definition. A small, consecutive group of related cases reported together, without a control group.
Typical structure. An aggregated presentation of the cases followed by discussion, applying observational-reporting principles (STROBE where relevant). Patient informed consent is required, as for case reports.
Review. External double-blind peer review. Length varies with the number of cases; please refer to the editorial office or the journal's page.
Definition. A concise but complete report of a single, focused finding that merits prompt dissemination.
Typical structure. A compressed IMRaD format with a limited number of figures and tables, following the reporting guideline for the underlying study design.
Review. Full external double-blind peer review — a shorter format held to the same standard of rigour. Length is guided at roughly 1,200–1,300 words; see the Author Guidelines.
Definition. A short, authoritative piece — usually invited — that frames a topic, a themed issue, or a scholarly debate.
Typical structure. Brief and argument-led, with light referencing.
Review. Editorial review by the editors or editorial board — not full external double-blind peer review. We state this distinction plainly so readers can interpret each article's status accurately.
Definition. A scholarly opinion, interpretation, or forward-looking viewpoint on an issue or on a previously published work.
Typical structure. A focused argument with supporting references.
Review. Editorial review, and it may be sent for external input at the editor's discretion.
Definition. Brief correspondence — often a response to a recently published article, or a short original observation.
Typical structure. Very short and tightly focused, with few references.
Review. Editorial review. Where a letter responds to a published article, the authors of the original work may be invited to reply; patient informed consent applies if any identifiable clinical detail is included.
To summarise the mapping precisely, our journals apply three levels of review:
Authors should follow the EQUATOR Network reporting guideline that matches their study design — CONSORT for randomised trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, STROBE for observational studies, CARE for case reports, and STARD for diagnostic-accuracy studies. For definitive word limits, abstract and keyword requirements, title length, reference style, and formatting, please consult the Author Guidelines. We summarise the essentials here and deliberately do not restate the full limits table — the Author Guidelines remain the single source of truth (for example: title up to 28 words; structured abstract of 200–250 words).
Certain requirements apply across every article type. Authors must disclose competing interests and funding, and meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship. Case reports, case series, and any identifiable images require documented patient informed consent for publication. Studies should include a data-availability statement where relevant, and all submissions undergo similarity screening. These expectations are set out in full in our Publication Ethics policy and the Author Guidelines. We also encourage every author and reviewer to register an ORCID iD.
If you are unsure which category best suits your manuscript, first check the target journal's page — the types offered can vary by journal — and then, if you still have questions, contact us. Our editorial team is glad to advise before submission. Start your submission at Submit a Manuscript, review the Author Guidelines, reach us through Contact, or email [email protected].