Publishing should work for you, not against you

The Meridian publishes the full range of scholarship that matters to biomedical and healthcare research. Each article type is peer-reviewed against criteria appropriate to its purpose. We do not criticize a commentary for lacking data, or an editorial for lacking limitations. The rubric fits the work.

Research and evidence

Original Research

Full-length empirical studies reporting novel findings of clear scientific or clinical significance. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs welcome. Authors must pre-specify hypotheses or research questions, justify sample size or analytic strategy, report methods in sufficient detail for replication, and address bias, confounding, and limitations openly. The applicable reporting guideline (CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, COREQ, TRIPOD, ARRIVE) is mandatory. Data and analytic code should be shared unless ethical or legal constraints prevent it. Reviewers assess methodological rigor, validity, transparency, and contribution to the field. Typically 3,000–6,000 words.

Brief Communication

Concise reports of significant preliminary findings, definitive null results, replication studies, or focused methodological innovations. Authors must justify the value of brevity, specify methods and analytic strategy at the same standard as full-length research, and address limitations honestly. The applicable reporting guideline is mandatory. Reviewers assess clarity of the claim, methodological soundness, and scientific contribution. Typically under 2,500 words, at most 2 tables or figures.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence synthesis grounded in a pre-specified, reproducible search and screening protocol. PRISMA 2020 is mandatory; protocol registration with PROSPERO or an equivalent registry is required. Authors must report search strategies in full, justify inclusion and exclusion criteria, conduct independent dual screening, formally assess risk of bias (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, AMSTAR, or domain-appropriate equivalent), and report certainty of evidence (e.g. GRADE). Meta-analyses must justify pooling decisions and assess heterogeneity. Reviewers evaluate methodological transparency, reproducibility, and the rigor with which conclusions are tied to the evidence. Typically 4,000–8,000 words.

Narrative, Integrative, Scoping, and Rapid Reviews

Non-systematic reviews that synthesise literature thematically or pragmatically. Authors must declare review type, justify the chosen approach, describe search strategy and inclusion criteria, and disclose methodological shortcuts (especially for rapid reviews). PRISMA-ScR is mandatory for scoping reviews; other review types must report search and screening in sufficient detail to be reproducible. Reviewers assess scope, rigor of synthesis, balance, and contribution beyond what existing reviews already provide. Typically 3,000–6,000 words.

Case Report

Single-patient or small-series reports that contribute generalisable learning, not merely curiosity. CARE is mandatory. Authors must establish novelty against existing literature, present clinical reasoning transparently, discuss alternative explanations, and identify limitations of inference from a single observation. Documented patient (or surrogate) consent for publication is required and verified at submission. Reviewers assess scientific contribution, fairness of inference, and ethical handling. Typically 1,500–3,000 words.

Methods, protocols, and data

Methodological and Theoretical Paper

Papers introducing a new method, framework, model, or theoretical contribution, without new empirical data. Authors must situate the contribution against prior work, derive or specify the method with sufficient detail for others to use and critique, demonstrate it on representative example data or use cases, and discuss limitations and assumptions. Reviewers assess soundness of derivation, novelty, usefulness to the field, and clarity. Typically 3,000–6,000 words.

Study Protocol

Pre-results protocols for clinical trials, systematic reviews, or observational studies. Public registration (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, OSF, or equivalent) is required before submission. SPIRIT for trials, PRISMA-P for reviews, or a domain-appropriate equivalent must be followed. Authors must justify scientific need, pre-specify primary and secondary outcomes, the analysis plan, sample size, and stopping rules where applicable, and describe ethical oversight. Reviewers assess feasibility, scientific value, and methodological transparency. Typically 2,500–5,000 words.

Software and Tool Paper

Informatics and computational contributions including pipelines, models, ontologies, and platforms. Source code must be publicly accessible with a persistent identifier and an OSI-approved licence. Authors must report architecture, validation against ground truth or established benchmarks, performance under realistic conditions, documentation status, and reproducibility (containerised environments encouraged). Reviewers assess originality, technical soundness, validation, documentation, and likely adoption. Typically 2,500–5,000 words.

Data Paper

Descriptor of a dataset or database intended for reuse. Underlying data must be deposited in a recognised repository with a persistent identifier and a clear reuse licence. Authors must document provenance, collection methods, the data dictionary, structure, quality control, known limitations, and concrete reuse scenarios. Sensitive or restricted data should be described with a documented access protocol. Reviewers assess scientific value, completeness of metadata, reuse readiness, and ethical handling. Typically 2,000–4,000 words.

Clinical practice and improvement

Quality Improvement Report

Non-research clinical improvement projects with a clear change pathway. SQUIRE 2.0 is mandatory. Authors must specify the local problem, theoretical basis or driver diagram, the intervention, measures (process, outcome, and balancing), iterative learning across PDSA or equivalent cycles, and ethical handling distinct from human-subjects research. Findings are not expected to generalise; the value lies in rigorous design, execution, and transferable learning. Reviewers assess design quality, fidelity of execution, and clarity of lessons. Typically 2,500–4,500 words.

Clinical Guideline

Invited or submitted practice recommendations grounded in a systematic evidence assessment. Authors must describe panel composition (multidisciplinary, including patient or public representatives where relevant), conflict-of-interest management, search and evidence synthesis methods, certainty grading (GRADE or equivalent), and a transparent process from evidence to recommendation. Reviewers assess methodological rigor (e.g. AGREE II domains), applicability, and handling of disagreement. Length varies by scope.

Perspective and discussion

Editorial

Invited reflection from an editor or board member. Looks backward at the field, a publication, or a policy development. Authors must state the claim, support it with evidence or experience, and represent opposing positions fairly. Reviewers assess clarity of claim, argumentation, fairness, and added value to scholarly debate. Typically 1,000–2,000 words.

Perspective / Viewpoint

Looks forward. Identifies an emerging problem or opportunity and proposes a path. May be invited or submitted. Authors must situate the perspective against current evidence, anticipate and engage counterarguments, and distinguish opinion from established findings. Reviewers assess clarity of claim, timeliness, fairness, and significance. Typically 1,500–3,000 words.

Commentary

Focused response to a specific published article, typically one recently published in The Meridian or elsewhere. May be invited or submitted. Authors must represent the source article accurately, ground critique or extension in evidence, and disclose any conflicts of interest with the original work. Reviewers assess fairness, evidence, and the value added beyond the original. Typically 1,000–1,500 words.

Letter to the Editor

Short response to a work published in The Meridian raising a question, correction, or alternative interpretation. Authors of the original work are invited to reply. Letters must be specific, evidence-based, and free of ad hominem framing. Reviewers assess relevance, evidence, and tone. Typically 400–1,000 words.

Not sure which type fits? Submit in whichever format feels closest. The intake system will suggest a type based on structure and content; you confirm or override before editorial review.

The Meridian charges an article processing charge (APC) to cover the real costs of publication: reviewer compensation, integrity screening, DOI registration, production, hosting, and archiving. Our pricing is designed to be accessible, significantly below the industry average of $1,600+, because we automate the overhead that inflates costs at legacy publishers.

Specific pricing will be published before we begin accepting general submissions. As a founding principle: no author will be unable to publish with us due to inability to pay.

Fee waivers

• Full APC waivers for authors from low-income and lower-middle-income countries (Research4Life Groups A/B)
• 50% waivers for early-career researchers (within 5 years of terminal degree)
• Confidential need-based waivers available on request; no one is turned away for inability to pay