Get your EFORT Open Reviews paper right the first time: a ready-made structure with the right abstract and citations, so editors see your science, not formatting slips.
4.6
Authored by Sumalatha Gangadhar | Published on 10 August, 2026
Submitting to EFORT Open Reviews goes smoothly when your draft already matches the journal's own rules. Editors screen new manuscripts against the EFORT Open Reviews guide for authors before peer review, so formatting, structure, and required statements should be right on the first draft rather than repaired during upload. This template sets that structure up for you.
It is a manuscript shell aligned to EFORT Open Reviews. It covers front matter, the abstract the journal expects, a body organized to the journal's article types, and a reference list in the journal's required style. Confirm current scope and article types on the EFORT Open Reviews journal page before you draft.
Prepare the title, authors, affiliations, and ORCID iDs. Write the abstract to the journal's rule and word limit, organize the body to the article type, and apply the required reference style from the first citation. Complete every declaration (ethics, competing interests, funding, data availability) the EFORT Open Reviews guide for authors lists, and cite figures and tables in order.
The common failure modes are formatting or reference style that does not match the guide for authors, missing required statements, and an incomplete portal checklist. Clear all three against the EFORT Open Reviews guide for authors before you submit.
The shell mirrors what editorial staff check first: article-type fit, the abstract rules, required declarations, and the journal's reference style. For more detail see the author resources. When your draft is ready, upload it through ScholarOne (Manuscript Central).
| Element | EFORT Open Rev requirement |
|---|---|
| Abstract | For narrative, instructional Review Articles: unstructured abstract summarising content and main conclusions into 3–6 bullet points, limited to a maximum of 250 words. For Systematic Reviews: structured abstract with sections Purpose, Methods, Results and Conclusions, limited to a maximum of 250 words |
| Main text | Review articles should be as concise as possible – recommended maximum word count of 4000 words |
| Declarations | Ethics approval/consent as applicable; competing interests; funding; data availability |
| Figures/tables | Publication-ready; cited in order |
| Supplemental | Upload separately when used |
| Keywords | 3–8 key terms should be supplied for every article, based upon terms that might be used when searching for the article online |
| References | Vancouver system, whereby references are numbered according to the order of citation in the text (not in alphabetical order). References should be kept to a minimum, comprising only works that have been studied in full by the authors, and should only cite published work. The majority of references should refer to peer-reviewed literature published within the last 5 years |
| Peer review | Double-anonymous peer-review (also known as double-blind), where both the authors are unaware of the identity of the reviewers and the reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors |
| Submission | mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/eor |
Read the EFORT Open Reviews guide for authors once before drafting and once before upload. Draft the abstract after results are stable. Set the reference style before adding citations. Keep a cover letter that states your contribution and fit to EFORT Open Reviews in under a page.
Skim two or three recent EFORT Open Rev papers to calibrate depth and figure style. Make the novelty clear in the first two pages. Deposit data and code when the policy on the EFORT Open Reviews journal page requires it. Disclose any preprint or conference version with identifiers in the cover letter.
Do one focused pass against the EFORT Open Reviews guide for authors: scope, length, reference style, required declarations, and figure quality. Then submit through ScholarOne (Manuscript Central).