Conflict of Interest

To ensure that Federal Practitioner and all publications of Frontline Medical Communications Inc. maintain the highest credibility and remain free of bias, the journal must be made aware of any commercial or financial relationships (for all authors) that might lead to conflict of interest charges stemming from statements made in an article. Federal Practitioner will include the results of the disclosure and may request that an author’s stated commercial or financial connection be disclosed in a footnote; such disclosure will not necessarily suggest that a bias exists. Note: All authors must complete a conflict of interest form, which must be submitted before the article can be published. A disclosure statement will be included at the end of their article to declare whether or not the authors have any conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All studies that involve human or animal subjects must abide by the rules of the appropriate institutional review board, research and development committee, or any other relevant oversight committee of the institution in which the research was conducted. Authors are required to reveal whether or not relevant committees approved or exempted the research from oversight. All authors are expected to adhere to the ethical principles for medical research involving human and animal subjects outlined in the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki as well as to all relevant guidelines from the institution in which the research was conducted. For complete ethical guidelines, see World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194.

Informed Consent

A signed statement of informed consent to publish photographs, video, and other identifiable patient information should be obtained from all persons, including legal guardians who can be identified. Informed consent should be indicated in the manuscript or acknowledgment section of the manuscript. Such persons should be offered the opportunity to see the manuscript before its submission.

Editorial Process

Federal Practitioner uses Editorial Manager, an Internet-based manuscript submission and review system. All manuscripts must be submitted through this system; e-mail or standard mail submissions will not be accepted. The Editorial Manager website can be found at

Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to Federal Practitioner for consideration as feature articles, case reports, or columns are reviewed by at least 3 members of our peer-review committee. Peer reviews are conducted in a double-blind fashion, and the reviewers are asked to comment on the manuscript’s importance, accuracy, relevance, clarity, timeliness, balance, and reference citations. Final decisions on all submitted manuscripts are made by the journal’s editor-in-chief (or in the event of a potential conflict of interest, a designated surrogate from the journal’s Editorial Advisory Association).

Federal Practitioner encourages peer reviewers to exclude themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. Peer reviewers should inform the editors of any related interests, including financial interests that might be perceived as relevant. Just as financial interests need not invalidate the peer reviewer’s conclusions about an article, they do not automatically disqualify an individual from evaluating it. Editors will consider these statements when weighing reviewers’ recommendations.

Manuscripts that are accepted for publication in Federal Practitioner undergo editing for length, clarity, and journal style. Some material may be reworded or reordered to improve readability and eliminate redundancy, but we make every effort to retain the authors’ voice and meaning. References, data, and other fact-based assertions are checked for accuracy. Queries are sent to the author who is expected to clarify or correct any issues prior to publication. Edited manuscripts are returned to the corresponding author for approval prior to publication.


Errors are a part of science and publishing. Corrections are needed for factual errors and typographical errors that can confuse or mislead readers. Federal Practitioner will prominently publish a correction when detected. Significant errors that may invalidate an article’s results and conclusions may require retraction. Retraction and republication may be considered in cases where an honest error results in a significant change in the significance of the results and conclusions.

Submission Guidelines

Click here for the complete submission guidelines for the style, article types, and peer review process for all Federal Practitioner submissions.

These policies have been reviewed by the Editor in Chief and the Editorial Advisory Association of Federal Practitioner.