The P&P website provides materials to help authors with requirements for DAP manuscripts at /Resources. Before submitting a manuscript ("pen draft") for P&P review, authors should ensure the following:
1. The manuscript submitted to the P&P represents the final version aside from changes requested by the P&P committee (penultimate draft of the manuscript).
2. All co-authors have approved the draft of the paper submitted for P&P review
3. The authors in the DAP Core Consortium Authorship List are included. If this list will not be used, please include an explanation in the manuscript cover note.
4. The manuscript has been sent to the DAP consortium authors; these authors may be given a limited amount of time, e.g., 48 hours, to respond with any substantive concerns or edits to the manuscript.
5. The manuscript includes the title and complete author list.
6. The manuscript includes line numbers to facilitate review.
6. "Dog Aging Project" appears in the manuscript title (preferred) or Abstract, or both.
7. The description of the Dog Aging Project, including DAP methods and procedures, is accurate and appropriately detailed.
8. The manuscript follows DAP editorial style including project dates, DAP instrument names and acronyms, and citation standards for the use of DAP data.
9. Manuscript contains an accurate and complete funding acknowledgement.
10. Manuscript includes a statement thanking study participants.
11. Items are prepared to insert in the cover note upon manuscript submission:
- Reasons for not including the DAP consortium as an author (if applicable)
- Reasons for deviating from analysis plan approved in the topic proposal (if applicable)
- Target journal (optional)
P&P review will additionally evaluate:
1. The paper is consistent with the approved Topic Proposal and does not extend beyond the scope of the approved proposal, particularly if this would interfere with the ability of other investigators to publish their work.
2. If the analysis in the submitted manuscript deviates from the analysis plan in the approved Topic Proposal, this should be explained in a cover note to the P&P committee.
3. The scientific rigor of the research is consistent with DAP standards.
4. The paper is well-written and represents the DAP well. In particular, the paper's Abstract is clear and accurate.
5. The interpretation of results is appropriate. Conclusions do not extend beyond what the data can support. The paper does not employ unjustified causal language or make premature clinical recommendations.
6. Authorship is appropriately inclusive.
7. If a veterinarian was not included on the primary authorship team (not including the DAP consortium), P&P may consult with the DAP veterinarians for clinical perspective on analysis and interpretation.