Unsupported Browser
The American College of Surgeons website is not compatible with Internet Explorer 11, IE 11. For the best experience please update your browser.
Menu
Become a member and receive career-enhancing benefits

Our top priority is providing value to members. Your Member Services team is here to ensure you maximize your ACS member benefits, participate in College activities, and engage with your ACS colleagues. It's all here.

Become a Member
Become a member and receive career-enhancing benefits

Our top priority is providing value to members. Your Member Services team is here to ensure you maximize your ACS member benefits, participate in College activities, and engage with your ACS colleagues. It's all here.

Become a Member
ACS
JACS

JACS Submission Information

JACS Submission Information

The Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS) is the official scientific publication of the American College of Surgeons, committed to publishing exceptional science for the House of Surgery. JACS invites original, high-impact manuscripts that advance surgical science, practice, and education. 

Submissions should demonstrate methodological rigor, relevance to the surgical community, and the potential to impact clinical decision-making, surgical innovation, or patient outcomes. JACS does not publish case reports and only rarely considers single-center retrospective case series. 

Strategic Priorities 

JACS seeks original research, innovations, and authoritative analyses that improve surgical practice, patient outcomes, education, and health systems worldwide. 

We prioritize work that addresses: 

  • Patient-centered outcomes such as PROMs, functional recovery, and quality of life 

  • Clinical implementation and scalability across diverse healthcare settings 

  • Surgical innovation, technique optimization, and emerging technologies 

  • Health policy, quality improvement, and access to care 

  • Artificial intelligence and machine learning with rigorous validation and clinical relevance 

  • Workforce well-being, surgical ergonomics, and educational innovation 

JACS also welcomes submissions that originate from, or are aligned with, ACS program initiatives. Studies that leverage data from ACS Quality Programs (such as NSQIP, NCDB, TQIP, MBSAQIP) or derive from ACS-supported research are especially encouraged. These submissions are eligible for: 

  • Prioritized editorial review 

  • Waived or discounted article processing fees 

  • Amplified dissemination via ACS communication channels 

By publishing your ACS-affiliated research in JACS, you contribute to the advancement of surgery on a national and global scale. 

Shape 

Article Types and Expectations 

We welcome submissions in the following categories: 

Original Scientific Articles: Full-length studies presenting new data from randomized trials, prospective observational cohorts, cost-effectiveness studies, or large-scale implementation efforts. Must include structured abstracts, detailed methodology, patient-centered outcomes, and implications for practice. 

Research Letters: Concise presentations of original data, often from secondary analyses, pilot studies, or early insights that warrant dissemination. Require structured abstracts and high impact within limited word count. 

Surgical Innovations: Technical notes that present novel procedures or modifications. Must include clear visuals and/or multimedia, detail procedural steps and rationale, and present preliminary feasibility or safety data. 

Surgical Viewpoints: Persuasive opinion pieces on timely topics. May offer argumentation around clinical controversies, workforce challenges, or new directions for surgical care or training. 

Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses: Rigorous evidence syntheses with protocol registration, structured methodology, and clear clinical takeaways. PRISMA adherence is required. Presubmission inquiry recommended. 

Scoping Reviews/State-of-the-Art Reviews: Broad or focused syntheses of literature across emerging fields or conceptual domains. Should highlight knowledge gaps and guide future inquiry. 

Clinical Practice Guidelines: Evidence-based recommendations developed under the leadership of relevant societies. Require methods documentation, formal grading of evidence, and multidisciplinary authorship. 

Expert Consensus Documents: Statements from working groups convened to address specific clinical problems where data is limited. Should present consensus methodology, delineate areas of agreement, and acknowledge uncertainty. 

Expert Opinions/White Papers: In-depth, interpretive analyses from field leaders synthesizing what is known and where the field must go. May reflect institutional or organizational thought leadership. 

AI/ML Studies: Submissions must clearly articulate the clinical relevance of the problem, include external validation, address fairness and bias, and follow guidelines such as TRIPOD-AI or DECIDE-AI. Explainability techniques should be detailed. Code and model sharing is strongly encouraged. 

Shape 

Abstracts and Summaries: Author Guidance 

I. Structured Abstracts for Original Scientific Articles and Reviews 

For article types such as Original Scientific Articles, Collective Reviews (Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses), and Research Letters, a structured abstract is required. Authors must follow the precise headings below (maximum 250 words total) and are strongly encouraged to adhere to the detailed guidance within each section to effectively communicate the value and rigor of their work. 

Background: (Recommended: 1–2 sentences) 
Purpose: To establish the clinical context, knowledge gap, and specific purpose or research question addressed by the study. 

  • State the specific clinical problem with precision. Avoid generic opening statements (e.g., “X is a common procedure”). Instead, anchor the rationale in a compelling and urgent surgical context, framing the problem in terms of its impact on patient outcomes (e.g., high morbidity, poor quality of life), healthcare systems (e.g., significant costs, resource utilization), or a critical challenge in surgical technique or training. 

  • Conclude with a single, clear, hypothesis-driven objective. The aim should be focused and answerable by the study’s methods. Abstracts lacking a focused, testable hypothesis are rarely advanced for full review. Avoid purely descriptive aims (e.g., “We sought to evaluate trends…”) unless the description addresses a major gap or is paired with a robust comparative analysis. 

Study Design: (Recommended: 3–4 sentences) 
Purpose: To clearly specify the study design and key methodological parameters, signaling scientific rigor. 

  • Specify the study type with precision. Use standard terminology (e.g., prospective randomized controlled trial, multi-center retrospective cohort using a national database [name it], systematic review and meta-analysis, AI/ML model development and external validation, theory-informed qualitative study). 

  • Provide core study parameters: Include sample size (N=), study setting (e.g., single academic center, multi-institutional collaborative, national registry), and the time frame of data collection. Single-center retrospective studies must be exceptionally novel or impactful to pass initial triage. 

  • Define Primary and Key Secondary Endpoints. For interventional studies, these must include relevant and meaningful patient-centered outcomes (PCOs), as their absence significantly diminishes a study’s perceived impact. 

  • Signal Methodological Rigor. Briefly mention key strengths where applicable (e.g., “propensity score matching was used to control for confounding,” “adherence to PRISMA guidelines,” “prospectively registered trial [NCT#]”). 

  • Demonstrate Substance for Advanced Methods. If using terms like “AI,” “Big Data,” or “Implementation Science,” the methodology described must include substantive details (e.g., specific model, validation technique, framework used) to demonstrate rigor. 

Results: (Recommended: 4–6 sentences) 
Purpose: To report the main quantitative and qualitative findings directly and factually. 

  • Provide specific, quantitative findings for primary outcomes. Do not simply state “X was significantly associated with Y.” Provide the data to support claims of significance; for example, “The 30-day surgical site infection rate decreased from 18% in the control group to 9% in the intervention group (adjusted OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30–0.67; p<0.001).” For comparative studies, clearly state the outcomes for each group. 

  • Highlight the most impactful result first. Lead with the finding that most directly answers the primary research question. 

  • Include relevant metrics for your study type. For predictive models, include performance metrics (e.g., AUC, sensitivity/specificity). 

  • Be data-driven. This section should be a dense and factual summary of your key discoveries, free of interpretation. 

Conclusions: (Recommended: 1–2 sentences, integrated with implications) 
Purpose: To provide a direct answer to the research question and state the main clinical implications, relevance to surgical practice, and next steps for research. 

  • Provide a direct and modest answer to the question posed in the Background/Objective. Ensure the conclusion is strictly supported by the data presented in the Results, avoiding claims or inferences that go beyond what was measured. 

  • State the “So What?” for the practicing surgeon. What is the single most important take-home message for the JACS readership? Clearly articulate the study’s potential for practice change, scalability, and translatability into different clinical settings. An abstract without a clear signal of tangible impact for the surgical community is unlikely to be prioritized. 

  • Define the next logical research step. Briefly state what future research is warranted based on your findings (e.g., “These findings support the need for a multi-center RCT…”). 

  • Avoid exaggerated language. Refrain from using terms like “proves,” “revolutionizes,” or “paradigm-shifting.” Frame conclusions as data-supported implications. 

Include up to 6 keywords after the structured abstract. 

Shape 

II. Unstructured Summaries for Other Article Types 

For article types such as Surgical Innovations, Surgical Viewpoints, Expert Opinions, and State-of-the-Art Reviews, a short, unstructured summary is required (maximum 150 words). While this summary does not use formal headings, it must be constructed with the same principles of clarity, precision, and impact. 

Purpose: To concisely articulate the manuscript’s core contribution, argument, or technical innovation and its significance to the JACS readership. 

Guidance: 

  • Lead with the Core Message: Immediately state the primary argument, innovation, or perspective being presented. For a Surgical Innovation, this should be the novel technique or technology and its key advantage. For a Surgical Viewpoint, this should be the central thesis or call to action. 

  • Provide Essential Context: Briefly explain the problem or context that makes this contribution timely and relevant. Why is this innovation needed? What controversy or issue does this viewpoint address? 

  • Summarize Key Points or Steps: For a Surgical Innovation, briefly outline the critical steps or unique features of the technique. For a Viewpoint or Expert Opinion, summarize the main points supporting your argument. 

  • Conclude with the “So What?”: End with a clear statement on the implications for surgical practice, patient care, policy, or future thinking. What should the reader take away after reading the full manuscript? 

Include up to 6 keywords after the unstructured summary. 

Shape 

Submission Process and Contact 

Full author instructions and more information can be found at www.journalacs.org. Submissions are accepted through the JACS Editorial Manager platform: 
https://www.editorialmanager.com/jacs 

All inquiries should be directed to: 
Thomas K. Varghese Jr, MD, MS, MBA, FACS 
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of the American College of Surgeons 
Email: jacsedit@facs.org 

 

Submit Your Manuscript