Instructions for Authors

In common with most peer-reviewed journals, Value in Health is keen to publish original material that will be highly impactful. However, Value in Health editors are aware that, within the field of health services research and policy, some material may have been previously available as a working paper, research paper, or through publication on the host institution’s website.

Value in Health does not have a firm policy to reject material that has been previously available in the public domain. Rather, the following tests will be applied to any paper submitted to Value in Health:

(i) Does the paper summarize the material from a much longer report that makes it more accessible to the readership of Value in Health and more likely to impact decision making because of the peer-reviewed publication?

(ii) Does the paper add to the methods and/or data published in the original report, either by reporting more data or by raising different discussion points?

(iii) In the case of a working paper or research paper, is the version submitted for peer review substantively different from the publicly posted draft version and will the organization that published the draft paper remove the draft version and redirect individuals to the final published paper in Value in Health?

If one or more of the above criteria are met, the paper may be considered for publication in Value in Health through our normal peer-review process. If Value in Health publishes the paper, a link from the original posting’s website should refer readers to the Value in Health publication.

Some authors are posting their papers as “preprints,” so that they can be made available in the public domain while they are being peer reviewed. Most publishers are aware of this process but delegate decisions on publication to each individual journal. There are currently different views among journal editors on whether posting papers as preprints constitutes prior publication.

Therefore, if an author is considering posting their paper on a preprint server, we strongly encourage them to contact the journal in advance.

Value in Health publishes Good Practices Reports that are developed by task forces appointed by the ISPOR Board of Directors. These task force reports (https://www.ispor.org/member-groups/task-forces) provide guidance for best practices across a variety of research areas, including methods related to articles relevant to the scope of Value in Health. These include comparative-effectiveness research, economic evaluation, observational studies, patient-reported outcomes, modeling, preference-based methods, and the use of outcomes research in decision making.

Although Value in Health does not prescribe any particular research methods, the editors strongly encourage authors to review the ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research reports relating to the methods or topics covered by their paper. The reports are written by thought leaders in the various fields of research and are extensively peer reviewed by members of the Society.

Some of the task force reports address the reporting of research studies. Irrespective of the methods used in a particular study, Value in Health believes that adherence to accepted standards of reporting is important. Therefore, if your paper reports an economic evaluation, we recommend that you follow the CHEERS 2022 guidelines¹ and submit a completed CHEERS 2022 checklist as supplementary material with your submission. If your analysis is based on a model, we recommend that you follow the guidance in the ISPOR-SMDM Task Force² report on model transparency and validation. Other reporting standards of particular relevance to authors of papers in Value in Health are the PRISMA 2020 guidelines³ for the reporting of systematic reviews and the CONSORT guidelines⁴ for reporting the results of studies assessing health-related quality of life/patient-reported outcomes. In addition, the editors encourage authors to follow recent guidance (“Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals”) published in JAMA for reporting race and ethnicity in medical journals.⁵

Value in Health considers articles in the following categories, which comprise the sections of the journal. When submitting a manuscript through our online system, authors should indicate the appropriate category under which they wish their paper to be considered. All submissions will be considered for peer review prior to publication, with the exception of Editorials and Letters to the Editor, which will be reviewed internally by the editors.

Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations that assess the costs and consequences of alternative healthcare interventions are of interest, including those involving drugs, devices, procedures, and systems of organization of healthcare. However, studies that only consider costs or the economic burden of disease are less likely to be accepted unless they address important methodological or policy issues.

Comparative-Effectiveness Research/Health Technology Assessment

Although it is difficult to be precise about the nature of the articles in this category (see Luce et al, The Milbank Quarterly. 2010; 88:256-276 for one taxonomy), Value in Health welcomes articles presenting information that can assist those deciding on the efficient and equitable allocation of healthcare resources by examining the relative value of interventions. In some cases, relative value may be addressed by considering only clinical outcomes, although normally it will involve considering PRO/QoL measures and impacts on resource utilization. Articles in this category can report the results of primary research or present findings from meta-analyses or systematic reviews of the existing literature.

Health Policy Analyses

The journal invites articles that discuss various aspects of health policy, in particular those concerned with pricing and reimbursement issues, the adoption of new health technologies, or policies to encourage “value-based” decision making. However, the journal’s scope does not include papers dealing with more general issues of healthcare financing, health insurance, and cost-containment measures.

Economic evaluations that assess the costs and consequences of alternative healthcare interventions are of interest, including those involving drugs, devices, procedures, and systems of organization of healthcare. However, studies that only consider costs or the economic burden of disease are less likely to be accepted unless they address important methodological or policy issues.

Patient-Reported Outcomes

Many challenging empirical and theoretical problems remain in the concept and measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PRO), including health-related quality of life (QoL). Articles presenting research on the development of measures for PRO/QoL instruments, especially innovative ways of assessing content or construct validity, are invited.

Preference-Based Assessments

Research on the development and use of various types of instruments to express the value of healthcare, including health “utility” assessments, discrete choice experiments/conjoint analyses, and assessments of individuals’ willingness to pay is encouraged.

* The manuscript word limit excludes the abstract, references, figure legends, tables, and appendices/supplemental materials.

It is the policy of Value in Health that peer review of submitted manuscripts is double anonymized (ie, the reviewers do not know the names of the authors of manuscripts and the authors do not know the names of the reviewers, reviewer and author names are visible to (decision-making) editors). As such, the journal requires that all identifying information (author names, acknowledgments, etc) be removed from the manuscript files and strictly limited to the cover letter and unblinded title page (which are not accessible to peer reviewers).

Manuscripts must be written in English, typed in 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, using an 81/2 x 11-inch page format with 1-inch margins on all sides. Manuscripts must be submitted as editable files (preferably as Word documents) and contain minimal formatting (ie, no line numbers, no watermarks, no justification, underlining, indenting, etc). The document should not cross-reference or use hyperlinks to connect to Figures, Tables, or references within the file. Authors should consult the AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors (10th ed)⁷ and the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (ICMJE Recommendations)⁸ for specific style issues not addressed here.

Each submission should contain the following manuscript components (elements are listed in the order they should appear in the manuscript):

1. Cover Letter

The cover letter should be addressed to the editors-in-chief and include a brief description of the article, indicating why the paper would be of particular interest to the readers of Value in Health, if it is being submitted for a particular themed section, and how it contributes to the existing literature. In addition, the cover letter should include the following specific components:

2. Title Pages

Each manuscript must contain two separate title pages in an editable format (preferably Word documents): One unblinded title page (containing author information, funding, and acknowledgements) and one blinded title page (containing no identifying information of the authors or author institutions). Generally, the title pages should contain the following elements:

3. Manuscript Components

All manuscript submissions must contain the following components (see table below). Start each component on a new page.

4. Figures

Figures should each be submitted as a separate image file, not embedded in the manuscript document or in a slide presentation. Cite figures consecutively as they appear in the text using Arabic numbers (eg, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, etc). Each figure must be assigned a brief title (as few words as possible, and reserving abbreviations for the legend) and include a legend, where appropriate. The corresponding legend should be double-spaced on a separate page. All symbols, arrows, and abbreviations must be explained in the legend. 

If authors provide usable color figures with their accepted article, the journal will ensure (at no additional charge) that these figures will appear in color online (eg, ScienceDirect and other sites). Image files should be provided in any the following formats: TIFF, JPG, PNG, and EPS at a minimum resolution of 92 DPI at a size of 3” x 5”.

Please be sure to delete any identifying patient information such as name, social security number, etc. Photographs in which a person’s face is recognizable must be accompanied by a letter of release from that person explicitly granting permission for publication in the journal. For any previously published material, written permission for both print and electronic reprint rights must be obtained from the copyright holder. For further explanation and examples of artwork preparation, see Elsevier’s Author Artwork Instructions.

5. Tables

Tables must be submitted in an editable format (eg, Word or Excel). Do not embed tables within the text of the main document or include hyperlinks to the tables within the document. Either upload tables as separate files after the figures or include them in the main document after the reference section. Tables should be clearly labeled, neatly organized and easy to understand without reference to the text. Statistical estimates should indicate parameter estimates and, as appropriate, t ratios or standard error, statistical significance, sample size, and other relevant information.

All abbreviations must be explained in alphabetical order below each table (eg, DCE indicates discrete choice experiment; EMA, European Medicines Agency; MCDA, multiple criteria decision analysis).

6. Supplementary Material or Appendices

7. Data, Models, Methodology, and Survey Instruments

All authors must agree to make their data available at the editor’s request for examination and re-analysis by referees or other persons designated by the editor. All models and methodologies must be presented in sufficient detail to be fully comprehensible to readers.

For papers analyzing preferences, Value in Health requires the submission of a copy of the survey instrument (translated into English if published in a different original language) used to generate the preference data. This is to help facilitate the review process, and the survey instrument need not appear in a final publication. If the authors wish the questionnaire to be published with the paper, it should be submitted through the journal’s online submission system as part of the paper. If the questionnaire is not intended to be published with the paper, it should be uploaded as “Supplemental File for Review” so that reviewers can view it as a supplemental appendix.

8. Reporting Sex and Gender in Research

Reporting guidance
For research involving or pertaining to humans, animals, or eukaryotic cells, investigators should integrate sex and gender-based analyses into their research design according to funder/sponsor requirements and best practices within a field. Authors should address the sex and/or gender dimensions of their research in their article. In cases where they cannot, they should discuss this as a limitation to their research’s generalizability. Importantly, authors should explicitly state what definitions of sex and/or gender they are applying to enhance the precision, rigor, and reproducibility of their research and to avoid ambiguity or conflation of terms and the constructs to which they refer (see Definitions section below). Authors can refer to the “Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) Guidelines” and the SAGER guidelines checklist. These offer systematic approaches to the use and editorial review of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, outcome reporting and research interpretation - however, please note there is no single, universally agreed-upon set of guidelines for defining sex and gender.

Definitions
Sex generally refers to a set of biological attributes that are associated with physical and physiological features (eg, chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, internal and external anatomy). A binary sex categorization (male/female) is usually designated at birth (”sex assigned at birth”), most often based solely on the visible external anatomy of a newborn. Gender generally refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men, and gender-diverse people that occur in a historical and cultural context and may vary across societies and over time. Gender influences how people view themselves and each other, how they behave and interact, and how power is distributed in society. Sex and gender are often incorrectly portrayed as binary (female/male or woman/man) and unchanging whereas these constructs actually exist along a spectrum and include additional sex categorizations and gender identities such as people who are intersex/have differences of sex development or identify as nonbinary. Moreover, the terms “sex” and “gender” can be ambiguous—thus it is important for authors to define the manner in which they are used. In addition to this definition guidance and the SAGER guidelines, the resources on this page offer further insight around sex and gender in research studies.

Value in Health remains one of the top-ranked journals in the HEOR field. The journal's current impact factor score is 4.9 and its 5-year score is 5.6. The journal is now rated 5th of 18th journals in Health Policy & Services, 15th of 174 journals in Health Care Sciences & Services, and 56th of 597 journals in Economics (social science).

The journal has also witnessed more than a 70% increase in submissions over the past 5 years. As a result, the editors now find it necessary to reject many more papers without peer review, including ones that may be suitable for publication in other leading  journals. In 2023, the journal’s overall rejection rate was 86.1%. Although we recognize that authors never want to hear that their papers are rejected, we also know that they value a fast response time. That said, the editors strive to return decisions on papers that are not sent out for an external peer review within 2 weeks.

On the other hand, all manuscripts that are deemed appropriate for Value in Health after initial screening will be reviewed by at least 2 peer reviewers. The objective of the journal is to complete peer review and reach an editorial decision within 6 to 8 weeks of submission, at which time the corresponding author will receive written notification, including anonymous feedback from the reviewers.

ISPOR journals expect the highest ethical standards from their authors, reviewers, and editors when conducting research, submitting papers, and throughout the entire peer review process. Both Value in Health and Value in Health Regional Issues subscribe to the  Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE)⁹ and supports COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.¹⁰

Proofs will be sent electronically to the corresponding author to be checked carefully for publication errors. Substantive changes or additions to the edited manuscript are not allowed at this stage. Any changes to authorship (additions, deletions, reorder, etc) or substantial changes in the data or results require review and approval by the Editors. Corrected proofs must be returned to the publisher within 48 hours.

The corresponding author, at no cost, will be provided with a PDF file of the article via email. For an extra charge, paper offprints can be ordered via the offprint order form which is sent once the article is accepted for publication. The PDF file is a watermarked version of the published article and includes a cover sheet with the journal cover image and a disclaimer outlining the terms and conditions of use.

For information on Ethics in Publishing and Ethical guidelines for journal publication, see http://www.elsevier.com/publishingethics and http://www.elsevier.com/ethicalguidelines.

ISPOR encourages responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies. Responsible use includes disclosing whether AI was used to produce submitted work(s), and if so, how it was used. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency between authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors and may facilitate compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool or technology.

ISPOR's complete AI policy is available here: https://www.ispor.org/ai-policy. To view Elsevier's AI policy, please go to https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals.

Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere (either in whole or in part, in print or electronic form, in English or in any other language, etc) without the written consent of the copyright holder.

The recommended number of authors on a paper should not exceed 10. However, Value in Health is aware that sometimes a submitted paper may have a large number of authors, in which case authorship may be assigned to a group rather than to individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The Editors reserve the right to seek clarification from the corresponding author if a paper has more than 10 authors or has a large number of authors in relation to the research reported in the paper.

Value in Health uses the guidance set forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) for Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.¹¹

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

• 
  Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• 
  Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
  

All those designated as authors should meet all 4 criteria for authorship, and all who meet the 4 criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all 4 criteria should be acknowledged. Authors can read the full set of recommendations at https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/.

Each author is required to complete and sign the journal’s Authorship Form. Completion of these forms is a condition of publication and papers will not be passed to the publisher for production unless the Editorial Office has completed forms on file for each author. The journal’s authorship and copyright assignment form can be found online here. The submitting author is responsible for uploading the completed Authorship Forms into the ScholarOne system on behalf of the authors at the time of revision.

If excerpts from other copyrighted works are included, the author(s) must obtain written permission from the copyright owners and credit the source(s) in the article. Elsevier has preprinted forms for use by authors in these cases; please consult www.elsevier.com/permissions.

All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. ISPOR’s journals follow the ICMJE’s policy for conflict of interest disclosures but use an online platform (ie, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ Convey disclosure system) to collect disclosures from each author. At the revision stage, the Editorial Office will send emails to every author on a paper to invite them to complete their individual disclosures for their paper. The emails will contain a secure link for each author to complete and submit their disclosure form online. The Editorial Office will not process a revised paper until all authors have completed and submitted a disclosure form via the Convey system.

In recent years, the importance to authors of open access has been increased by the policies of major research funders in many countries, requiring that the publications arising from the work they fund should be freely available to all. Publishing your work as gold open access means that millions of researchers globally will be able to find and read your work, completely free. Your work is also included in relevant indexes and databases, making it discoverable, accessible, and citable by other researchers and readers around the world. While there is a fee associated with publishing your work as gold open access (view article processing charges for Value in Health here), the number of open access agreements Elsevier has reached with various institutions could mean that the fees may be covered or discounted. To see if your institution has a funding arrangement with Elsevier, click here.

If your institution isn't covered by one of Elsevier's open access agreements, you should know that ISPOR members receive a discount on article processing charges if they choose to publish their paper as an open access article. However, not all articles published in Value in Health require a fee. Articles that are not published as open access are accessible to subscribers. Because Value in Health is a Society journal, all the published content automatically becomes open archive (freely accessible to all) 1 year after publication. Therefore, authors needing their articles to be open access to meet the requirements of various research competitions and awards may not need to pay for open access publication in Value in Health, depending on the precise requirements of their research funders.

In addition, the editors-in-chief identify specific articles throughout the year that they believe are likely to have a high impact and therefore merit immediate “free” access on the publisher’s website at http://www.valueinhealthjournal.com for a specified period of time (ie, 30 days). Access is restricted for the remainder of the 12-month period, after which point the article becomes open archive and freely accessible to all 1 year after publication.

As an author you (or your employer or institution) retain certain rights; for details refer to http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights.

1. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Explanation and Elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2022;25(1):10-31.
2. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model Transparency and Validation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843-850.
3. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;273(71). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
4. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.
5. Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL, et al. Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals. JAMA. 2021;326(7):621-627.
6. Chalmers I. The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703: 156-165.
7. AMA Manual of Style Committee. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 10th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007.
8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Updated December 2018. Accessed January 14, 2022. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. 
9. Committee on Publication Ethics. Accessed January 14, 2022. https://publicationethics.org.
   
10. COPE Council. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. www.publicationethics.org. Version 2. Published September 2017. Accessed January 14, 2022. https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_
    Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.
    
11. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Accessed January 14, 2022. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.