• Video abstracts should not last longer than 4 minutes.
• The content and focus of the video must relate directly to the study that has been accepted for publication, and should not stray beyond the data. We recommend that you follow the same structure as the paper itself i.e. briefly outline the background/context of the study, present your research objective, outline the methods used, present the key results and then discuss the implications of the outcomes.
• The presentation and content of the video should be in a style and in terms that will be understandable and accessible to a general medical audience. The main language should be English, but we welcome subtitles in another language. Please avoid jargon that will not be familiar to a wide medical audience, and do not use abbreviations.
• Authors usually talk directly into the camera and/or present a slideshow, but we encourage the use of other relevant visual and audio material (such as animations, video clips, still photographs, figures, infographics). If you wish to use material from previously published work or from other sources, please obtain the appropriate permissions from the relevant publisher or copyright owner.

• If the video shows any identifiable living patients and/or identifiable personal details, authors need to demonstrate that consent has been obtained. If a patient consent form was provided for the related article, there is no need to provide this again for the video.
• Please use the compression parameters that video sharing sites use. Often these are standard options from your editing software. A comprehensive guide is available from the vimeo website.

• At what stage in the research process were patients/the public first involved in the research and how?
• How were the research question(s) and outcome measures developed and informed by their priorities, experience, and preferences?
• How were patients/the public involved in the design of this study?
• How were they involved in the recruitment to and conduct of the study?
• Were they asked to assess the burden of the intervention and time required to participate in the research?
• How were (or will) they be involved in your plans to disseminate the study results to participants and relevant wider patient communities (e.g. by choosing what information/results to share, when, and in what format)?

• Review: systematic review and narrative review
• Consensus statement
• Original research
• Discussion
• Editorial
• Service spotlight
• Education pearls
• Patient voices
• Infographics
• PhD Academy Award
• Supplements
• Mobile app User Guide

Systematic review

• We are looking for experts to synthesise the literature and to comment on the outcomes of the review in a meaningful and clinically relevant way.
• The topic must be of relevance to clinicians with the key question ‘will the findings change what practitioners do?’’
• Succinct and focussed reviews, with questions that are topical, novel or controversial that will attract readers and researchers to the journal are more likely to be accepted.
• The literature search should have been completed within 12 months of manuscript submission.
• A completed PRISMA checklist is required and should accompany the submission as supplemental material.
• All systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis) should address all items recommended in the PRISMA statement.
• Please consider the PERSiST guidance (implementing PRISMA in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) available at https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/08/bjsports-2021-103987 and reference in the methods: Ardern CL, Büttner F, Andrade R, et al. Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance. Br J Sports Med. Published Online First: 08 October 2021. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-103987
• All titles should include 'a Systematic Review' or ‘a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis’. A structured Abstract should be added to the Main Document, including headings Objective, Design, Data sources, Eligibility criteria for selecting studies, Results and Conclusion.
• Please include a summary box summarising in 3-4 clear and specific bullet points ‘What is already known’ and 'What are the new findings'.
• Systematic review registration: please provide the registry and number (if registered) in the methods section.
• Please consider whether the topic warrants a systematic review or whether a scoping review would be more appropriate. See here for guidance.space

Narrative review

• What is already known on this topic - summarise the state of scientific knowledge on this subject before you did your study and why this study needed to be done
• What this study adds - summarise what we now know as a result of this study that we did not know before
• How this study might affect research, practice or policy - summarise the implications of this study

• The background story of the individual or group being recognised
• The purpose of the service or volunteerism
• Challenges faced by both the community and the individual/group being recognised
• The impact of the work on the community (i.e. safer sport, healthier world)
• How the work was innovative, educational or translated knowledge successfully
• Reflections or lessons learned
• Plans to make the project sustainable
• Contacts or resources for more information about the service or program

• Title: focused area
• Background: introductory paragraph addressing the relevance of the topic, up to 5 sentences
• Short case example: 2-3 sentences
• Clinical question: the focus of the piece
• Clinical features: important elements of the history and physical exam to address. This section may address recommended adjunct tests with a concise explanation of their diagnostic value
• Management: summary and synthesis from resources. This should include evidence-based treatment options including key clinical pearls (and may include anecdotal suggestions on items to observe or examination maneuvers not always addressed in research or textbooks- “pearls”)
• Figure: allows additional information not in text or emphasizes a key point
• Practical tips: take-away clinical pearls (limit to 5)

• What is already known on this topic - summarise the state of scientific knowledge on this subject before you did your study and why this study needed to be done
• What this study adds - summarise what we now know as a result of this study that we did not know before
• How this study might affect research, practice or policy - summarise the implications of this study

• The journal editor, an editorial board member or a learned society may wish to organise a meeting, sponsorship may be sought and the proceedings published as a supplement.
• The journal editor, editorial board member or learned society may wish to commission a supplement on a particular theme or topic. Again, sponsorship may be sought.
• The BMJPG itself may have proposals for supplements where sponsorship may be necessary.
• A sponsoring organisation, often a pharmaceutical company or a charitable foundation, that wishes to arrange a meeting, the proceedings of which will be published as a supplement.

• Journal in which you would like the supplement published
• Title of supplement and/or meeting on which it is based
• Date of meeting on which it is based
• Proposed table of contents with provisional article titles and proposed authors
• An indication of whether authors have agreed to participate
• Sponsor information including any relevant deadlines
• An indication of the expected length of each paper Guest Editor proposals if appropriate