Table 1.

Factors promoting the likelihood of acceptance or rejection from Implementation Science by manuscript type

Type of manuscript	Factors promoting likelihood of acceptance	Factors promoting likelihood of rejection	Preferred reporting methods
Debate	Papers which question or challenge existing implementation policies, practices, evidence or theory and suggest modifications or alternatives	Papers which fail to contextualise in the literature or demonstrate how they build upon the existing implementation research literature	N/A
Effectiveness	Studies that fit our journal scope and that employ rigorous experimental or quasi experimental designs (i.e. designs eligible for inclusion in Cochrane EPOC reviews) And Evaluate the implementation of an evidence-based practice or policy or de-implementation of those demonstrated to be of low or no clinical benefit	Studies which lack a rigorous study design such as quality improvement reports, service evaluations or uncontrolled before-after studies Studies evaluating the effectiveness of novel clinical, organisational, public health or policy interventions	CONSORT for Trials
Economic evaluation	Any cost effectiveness analysis that compares the costs and outcomes of two or more implementation strategies	Cost and cost consequences analysis where disaggregated costs and outcomes are presented	CHEERS
Intervention development reports	Prepared and submitted prior to the reporting of the effectiveness of the intervention Plans for (robust) evaluation are made explicit Providing empirical and/or theoretical rationale	Post hoc submission (submitted after the reporting of the effectiveness of the intervention) No plans for (robust) evaluation
Methodology	Articles that present methods which may either be completely new or offer an improvement to an existing method Articles reporting empirical comparisons of one or more methodological approaches or which clearly state what they add to existing literature	Descriptive accounts of largely established methods without any associated novel methodological insights	N/A
Pilot and feasibility studies	Studies that fit our journal scope and conducted with the explicit purpose of assessing feasibility and planning for an intervention that is expected to contribute to existing knowledge Studies indicating how a subsequent study will draw from the pilot study Clear plans for further evaluation or where there are clear reasons for not	No justification for conduct Over claim on basis of results
Process evaluation	Studies that fit our journal scope and are submitted contemporaneously with or following reports of intervention effectiveness and that take account of the main evaluation outcomes Studies evaluating fidelity of implementation, mechanisms of impact and or contextual influences on implementation and outcomes	Process evaluations submitted in advance of the conduct of the main effectiveness analysis (it cannot be clear if they are explaining an effect or the absence of an effect) Process evaluations that do not take account of the main evaluation outcomes
Protocols	Protocols that fit our journal scope and inclusion criteria for rigorous study designs And That have been through a competitive peer review process to receive funding from a nationally or internationally recognised research agency And That have received appropriate ethics review board approval And That have been submitted within three possible time points: (1) Within 3 months of ethics approval, (2) Prior to enrolment of the first participant/cluster (3) Before the end of participant/cluster recruitment (i.e. prior to the commencement of data cleaning or analysis)	Protocols that have not been the subject of peer review by a national or international research agency Protocols that have received ethics review board approval Protocols for quality improvement or service evaluations, which lack a rigorous study design Protocols for pilot or feasibility studies Protocols for systematic reviews and other types of synthesis (we usually refer these to the BMC journal, systematic reviews) Protocols that are submitted for studies where data cleaning and analysis have begun	As SPIRIT is developed for clinical trials, we prefer authors to complete as far as they can the CONSORT checklist or appropriate extension
Qualitative studies	Studies that fit the journal scope and meet applicable criteria for quality and validity	Studies where there are doubts whether planned data saturation has been achieved Single site case studies with limited typicality Studies that fail to link to relevant theory or without contextualisation and with little reference to previous relevant qualitative studies or reviews
Short reports	Brief reports of data from original research which present relatively modest advances in knowledge or methods	Reports of meetings, ‘doing implementation’ or ‘lessons learned’	N/A
Systematic reviews and other syntheses	Systematic reviews and other types of synthesis (such as rapid, realist or scoping) that fit our journal scope and which may cover issues such as the effects of implementation interventions and or influences on the uptake of evidence	Non-systematic or narrative literature reviews that fail to use explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research Reviews and syntheses that fail to adhere to recognised quality and reporting standards	PRISMA RAMESES for realist reviews