{"meta":{"status":200,"messages":[],"pagination":{"max":1,"offset":0,"count":1,"total":1,"pageNum":1,"totalPages":1,"sort":null,"currentUrl":"https://api.digitalmedia.hhs.gov/api/v2/resources/media.json?offset=0&max=1&ignoreHiddenMedia=1&format=json&id=6795&newUrlBase=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr","nextUrl":null,"previousUrl":null}},"results":[{"content":"
\n3.0 Authorship and Acknowledgment
\n4.0 Specific Guidance on Formatting Submissions
\n5.0 Clearance, Submission, and Acceptance
\n7.0 Submitting Supplementary Tables and Figures
\n8.0 Prepublication Sharing of MMWR Reports
\nAppropriateness: MMWR Weekly publishes information useful to readers in the public health community, clinicians, researchers, teachers and students, and the news media. Reports are based on science (especially epidemiology) or on public health policy or practice. Recommendations contained within reports must be consistent with CDC policy.
\nOriginality: Reports should not have been previously published elsewhere or contain primary results that have previously been released with the exception of presentation at scientific meetings.
\nQuality: Reports should be based on analyses using accepted scientific methods and should include sufficient data to adequately address the public health topic.
\nTimeliness: Reports should contain the most current data from surveys, surveillance systems, or studies, and the most recent data should not be older than 2 years at the time of submission. Data from outbreaks and other public health investigations should not be older than 10 months at time of submission.
\nClarity: Reports should be succinct and organized logically with the reader in mind, with minimal use of acronyms and initialisms.
\nFive types of reports are published in MMWR Weekly: 1) Full Reports, 2) Outbreak Reports, 3) Policy Notes, 4) Notes from the Field, and 5) Vital Signs.
\nhttps://wcms-wp.cdc.gov/mmwr/wp-admin/post.php?post=5280&action=edit#/
\nReport Types | \nReport Elements | \n
---|---|
Full Reports describe a completed investigation or study that answers a question of public health importance. Ideally, the answer should be one that can guide future public health practice. | \nUnstructured abstract (150\u2013200 words) \u22641,400 words \u22643 tables, figures, or boxes \u226410 references \u226416 footnotes Summary box <3 supplementary tables or figures (optional) | \n
Outbreak Reports describe the methods, findings, and public health actions of an in progress or recently completed outbreak or other public health investigation. As much as possible, an Outbreak Report should tell the story and read like a chronologic narrative. | \nUnstructured abstract (150\u2013200 words) \u22641,400 words \u22643 tables, figures, or boxes \u226410 references \u226416 footnotes Summary box <3 supplementary tables or figures (optional) | \n
Policy Notes are intended to announce new official CDC policies or recommendations. These reports can be thought of as briefer, more immediate versions of the MMWR Recommendations and Reports. | \nUnstructured abstract (150\u2013200 words) \u22641,400 words \u22643 tables, figures, or boxes the minimum references necessary to support the recommendation \u226416 footnotes Summary box <3 supplementary tables or figures (optional) | \n
Notes from the Field are brief reports of ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community. These reports may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information. No definitive conclusions need be presented. | \n\u2264500 words <1 table, figure, or box \u22645 references \u22645 footnotes Summary box | \n
Vital Signs reports are a special feature of MMWR that cover an important health threat and what actions can be taken to reduce or eliminate the health threat. The topics of MMWR Vital Signs reports align with CDC or ATSDR priorities and are invited by agency senior leadership. Vital Signs are released with a comprehensive health communications campaign. | \nStructured abstract (\u2264250 words) \u22641,800 words \u22644 tables, figures, or boxes \u226420 references \u226416 footnotes Summary box <3 supplementary tables or figures (optional) | \n
A Full Report is a report of a completed investigation or study that answers a question of public health importance. Ideally, the answer should be one that can guide future public health practice. A hallmark of MMWR Full Reports is simplicity. Each Full Report should be understandable by an informed medical or public health professional without special knowledge of the subject. These reports are intended to summarize the analysis and recommendations, not to provide every detail. A strict 10-reference rule is intended to limit the scope of the report. A good test for simplicity is whether, in a sentence or two, you can easily describe to another person what the report is about and what should be done.
\nFull Reports are \u22641,400 words total, not including the abstract. Full Reports typically have a labeled Abstract and labeled Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. The Discussion contains conclusions followed by subsections labeled Limitations and Public Health Implications. Different formats and additional section headings can be used to organize more complicated reports.
\nThe Abstract is similar to both a newspaper lead paragraph (i.e., who, what, when, where, why, and how?) and the abstract of a report in a typical medical journal. It will be deposited as an abstract into online databases (e.g., PubMed, PubMed Central, and Web of Science).
\nInclude the following components (unstructured [i.e., unlabeled]):
\nAll information in the Abstract should be included in the corresponding section of the body of the report.
\nProvide background information on the problem, its public health importance, and the rationale for the work described in the report.
\nProvide a concise summary of the methods used to conduct the study and analyze the data.
\nList the statistical software used for analysis, with the version and manufacturer in parentheses after the software name, as shown in the following examples:
\nSpecific procedures used for complex modeling (e.g., SAS PROC GENMOD) may be named but are not required.
\nDo not name software used for data management.
\nInclude human subjects determination and consent statement as appropriate. CDC authors should follow the phrasing guidance at Standard Language for Human Subject Determination and Consent (cdc.gov).
\nInclude new findings made evident by original analyses conducted by the authors.
\nConcisely highlight the major results of the analysis. Content should be organized using appropriate subheadings.
\nData highlighted in the text are also generally presented in a table or figure.
\nData referenced in the Discussion section must be included in the Results section.
\nBegin by stating the conclusions of the report, interpreting the results, conveying their public health meaning, and placing the results into context by citing comparative or corroborative studies.
\nInclude a labeled Limitations paragraph as the next to last paragraph. Limitations are aspects of the data or analysis that might affect the accuracy or validity of results.
\nConclude with labeled Implications for Public Health Practice and any recommendations for prevention and control, including a specific call to action when possible.
\nOther Full Report components that are not included in the word count are listed below with links to formatting guidance.
\nOutbreak Reports are \u22641,400 words total, not including the abstract. Outbreak Reports should generally follow the format of Full Reports, with some elements specific to outbreak reporting which are described below. Outbreak Reports generally include labeled Abstract, Investigation and Results, Public Health Response, and Discussion sections. Different formats and section headings can be used depending on the scope of the outbreak, its investigation, and the public health response. For example, separate sections for Epidemiologic Investigation, Environmental Health Investigation, and Laboratory Investigation, might be used to describe different components of the investigation. As much as possible, an Outbreak Report should read like a chronologic narrative and tell the story.
\nThe Abstract will be deposited as an abstract into online databases (e.g., PubMed, PubMed Central, and Web of Science).
\nInclude the following components (unstructured [i.e., unlabeled]):
\nPresent the initial investigation and its findings. This might include the following:
\nSummarize the full investigation, including the case definition, case-finding activities, method of investigation, and results. Cases should be counted and described by clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcome, as well as by time, place, and person, if applicable.
\nPresent the methods and results of any analytic studies (e.g., cohort or case-control studies).
\nProvide the results of any relevant microbiologic, genetic, or toxicologic results, and results of any testing of environmental samples.
\nWhen appropriate, include a brief description summarizing any public health interventions taken and the results of the interventions.
\nFormat is the same as for a Full Report, except that a Limitations paragraph might not be necessary for an Outbreak Report.
\nOther Outbreak Report components that are not included in the word count are listed below with links to formatting guidance.
\nMMWR Policy Notes are intended to communicate official CDC policies or recommendations. These reports can be thought of as briefer (\u22641,400 words total, not including Abstract), more immediate versions of the MMWR series Recommendations and Reports.
\nPublic health guidance included in an MMWR Policy Note should be developed in accordance with CDC\u2019s Public Health Guidance Development Framework.
\nPrior to developing a report, programs must submit a brief (~300 word) proposal outlining the purpose of the report, methods, findings, and conclusions.
\nThe format of Policy Notes can vary considerably, so authors should check published MMWR reports similar to their submission to help determine the optimal format and structure for their report by searching for relevant title words such as \u201ctreatment considerations,\u201d \u201cguidance,\u201d or \u201crecommendation.\u201d
\nReports should be cleared by CDC Office of Scientific Evidence and Recommendations (OSER) as part of CDC clearance, before the final cleared report is submitted through MMWR ScholarOne Manuscripts.
\nThe following is a general guide for formatting:
\nThe Abstract will be deposited as an abstract into online databases (e.g., PubMed, PubMed Central, and Web of Science).
\nInclude the following components (unstructured):
\nInclude a paragraph that summarizes background information relevant to the policy or recommendation that can help the reader understand the context and need for the policy or recommendation.
\nInclude a summary of the methods used to establish the policy or recommendation, including answers to some or all of the following questions:
\nProvide a concise review of the rationale for the policy or recommendation and a descriptive review of the scientific evidence used to establish it. It should include an explanation of how the policy or recommendation adds to, or differs from, relevant policies or recommendations established previously.
\nState clearly when the policy or recommendation takes effect and to whom and under what circumstances it applies.
\nComment on the likely impact of the new policy or recommendation and plans for assessment of the policy or recommendation.
\nPolicy Notes do not contain a limitations paragraph.
\nOther Policy Notes components that are not included in the word count are listed below with links to formatting guidance.
\nNotes from the Field are \u2264500 words total and do not have an abstract. MMWR Notes from the Field are abbreviated reports describing ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community. Events of concern include epidemics, outbreaks, unusual disease clusters, poisonings, exposures to disease or disease agents (including environmental and toxic), and notable public health\u2013related case reports.
\nNotes from the Field should include a brief unlabeled introduction, followed by two general headings: Investigation and Outcomes, and Preliminary Conclusions and Actions. Different headings can be used depending on the scope and format of the report. The following is a general guide for formatting.
\nThe brief, unlabeled introduction should describe the onset of the event and when and how it came to light.
\nPreliminary conclusions and actions that were, are being, or should be taken based on the findings in the report. No definitive conclusions need be presented. A limitations paragraph is not needed.
\nOther Notes from the Field components that are not included in the word count are listed below with links to formatting guidance.
\nMMWR Vital Signs reports are a special feature of MMWR that cover an important health threat and the actions that can be taken to reduce or eliminate the health threat. The topics of MMWR Vital Signs reports align with CDC or ATSDR priorities and are invited by agency senior leadership. Vital Signs reports are released with a comprehensive health communications campaign.
\nVital Signs reports have an established format, schedule of topics, and dates of publication. The format of Vital Signs includes a structured, labeled abstract (\u2264250 words) which will be deposited into online databases (e.g., PubMed, PubMed Central, and Web of Science) and main text (\u22641800 words, not including the abstract) that contains headings for the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. Authors should check the most recently published Vital Signs and adhere to the format of those reports while also adhering to the general principles of Full Reports. For examples, see https://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/index.html.
\nOther components that are not included in the word count are listed below with links to formatting guidance.
\nMMWR reports may be authored by CDC staff members, non-CDC staff members, or a combination, but not authored by artificial intelligence (AI)\u2013assisted technologies.
\nMMWR attribution policy follows guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
\nPersons listed as authors must meet all four of the following conditions:
\nICMJE recommends that all persons who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript. Persons should not be listed as authors solely by virtue of their position in an organization or by attendance at a meeting. Similarly, participation only in the acquisition of funding, fieldwork, or general supervision of one or more of the authors is not sufficient for authorship. Persons or groups who reviewed a manuscript for a clearance process or who suggested revisions or limited changes to a manuscript should not be listed as authors.
\nIn accordance with ICMJE recommendations, chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality, which are requirements for authorship. Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that includes the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author.
\nThe order of authors should be a joint decision of the coauthors. MMWR recognizes that scientific work is a collaboration and collaborators have a responsibility to define, accept, and fulfill their roles. MMWR recommends that author order be discussed early and revised as needed as the work progresses. Author order, including choice of first author, should be based on the level of contribution to the report and the work underlying it. At times, two authors contribute equally to a report in a major role. Authors can indicate dual first or senior authorship. These authors\u2019 names should be footnoted in the author list, and the footnotes describing equal contribution should be the first (and if also dual senior authors, second) footnotes in the report (i.e., included with all the other footnotes).
\nIf authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, they should provide MMWR with an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.
\nAt times, a group will meet CDC\u2019s criteria for authorship. If there is a group author on the byline, the group title and list of individual members may be included following the text of the report and any general acknowledgements; persons listed in the group will be indexed in PubMed as collaborators. MMWR follows U.S. National Library of Medicine guidance for designating authors and other contributors in MEDLINE.
\nAll authors who are listed on the byline are responsible for disclosing all relationships and activities that might bias or be seen to bias their work as potential conflicts of interest, such as financial relationships, personal relationships, competition or rivalries, and intellectual beliefs upon article submission. If the submission is accepted for publication, the MMWR editor will draft a conflict of interest statement for the article based on the forms submitted by the authors. In general, MMWR follows guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Guidelines on Good Publication Practice, and ICMJE\u2019s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals.
\nAny individual author can be designated as the corresponding author. In accordance with ICMJE recommendations, the corresponding author has primary responsibility for communicating with MMWR staff and will
\nAn Acknowledgments section can be used to recognize the work of persons or groups who made substantial contributions to the project but who do not meet authorship criteria. MMWR style is to list persons or groups and their affiliation only. MMWR does not describe specific contributions such as \u201cfor preparing the figures\u201d or \u201cfor editorial/statistical review,\u201d etc.
\nOpen a new Microsoft (MS) Word document to create your report. Do not use a previous journal-formatted proof as a template for your report; formatted proofs contain underlying (often unremovable) coding that interferes with MMWR processing. Typing or copying/pasting all or portions of your report into a previous proof will make your report unusable.
\nText should be double-spaced and left justified (ragged right margin), and pages should be numbered.
\nReport components in the primary MS Word file should be in this order (not all components are required for every report):
\nMaximum length of reports varies by report type; refer to the appropriate section of the instructions. Word count does not include title, author information, footnotes, references, acknowledgments, or summary box.
\nBecause MMWR represents the voice of CDC, use of first person (e.g., I, we, our) is not permitted in MMWR publications.
\nTitle includes topic followed by em dash (\u2014) offset by spaces, data source (if used), location, and timeframe (date range should include an en dash (\u2013) between beginning and ending dates with no space preceding or following the en dash. For example: \u201cEvaluation of the Cherokee Nation Hepatitis C Virus Elimination Program \u2014 Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2015\u20132020.\u201d
\nDo not refer to direction or comparison (e.g., \u201cTrends in \u2026\u201d or \u201cLarger\u2026\u201d).
\nList of authors follows the title. Use first and last names and middle initials (optional), followed by the author\u2019s degree or degrees (at authors\u2019 discretion, degrees can be omitted).
\nOnly report degrees equivalent to master\u2019s and above (i.e., do not include bachelor\u2019s level or below or professional certifications), and only the highest-level degrees should be used (e.g., if author has both a master\u2019s and a PhD, report only the latter). Multiple degrees of equal rank can be listed (e.g., MD, PhD, and DVM; MS and MPH, etc.). At authors\u2019 discretion, degrees can be omitted.
\nUse a superscripted numeral after each author\u2019s degree or degrees for author affiliations provided at the end of the report. Do not combine multiple affiliations for an author under one number; each affiliation should be reported separately.
\nNon-CDC affiliations should include city and state.
\nCDC contractors should use their contract company affiliation.
\nProvide the corresponding author\u2019s contact information (name [as appears in author list] and e-mail address) below the author affiliations section. The first-initial-with-last-name@cdc.gov format is preferred over the userid@cdc.gov format for the email address.
\nIf there is a group author on the byline, the group title and list of members may be included immediately after the text of the report and any general acknowledgements. Provide author names (no degrees) and short affiliations (organization or location). Reference this report for an example.
\nSee examples below for preferred order and format:
\nSharon Saydah, PhD1; Robert B. Gerzoff, MS1; Christopher A. Taylor, PhD2; Joshua R. Ehrlich, MD3; Jinan Saaddine, MD, PhD1
\n1Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; 2Division of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; 3Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
\nList non-author contributors as \u201cPerson 1, Person 2, Affiliation 1; Person 3, Affiliation 2\u201d; etc.
\nAn example is provided below:
\nAll community members and service providers who participated in qualitative interviews; Sergio Caraballo, Sofia Mendez, Buena Gente Community Fund; Joshua Johnson, Green County Board of Health; Tegan Boehmer, Rachel Kaufmann, CDC; Elizabeth Smart, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine.
\nIn text, number the references in order of appearance. Place reference number callouts in parentheses inside of any punctuation. Italicize the material within the parentheses only; do not italicize the parentheses themselves. Do not include a space after the comma when listing multiple reference numbers. For example: (1), (2,3), (1\u20133).
\nIn the References section at the end of the report, list references in numeric order. Follow the style of ICJME Recommendations (formerly Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts), available at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html.
\nPreprints should be cited as references.
\nDo not use the references function of MS Word or reference manager software to create the reference list.
\nUse the following footnote symbols in order of appearance: *, \u2020, \u00a7, \u00b6, **, \u2020\u2020, \u00a7\u00a7, \u00b6\u00b6, etc. All symbols are superscripted except *. Footnote symbols should be placed outside of any punctuation except semicolons and colons. For example: \u201cThe study identified one patient with condition X,** and two patients with condition Y.\u2020\u2020\u201d
\nEach footnote should be \u226480 words; the maximum length of all footnotes combined is 700 words.
\nEach footnote callout may only be used once in the body of the report.
\nDo not use the endnotes function of MS Word to create footnotes.
\nThe Summary Box contains the key public health message, as well as the justification for the publication. It is a shorter version of and must only contain information provided in the Abstract. Essentially, it is an abstract of the abstract. It may be written in plainer language because it might be used in social media. Active voice is preferred. Use of first person (e.g., I, we, our) and directive language (e.g., \u201cdo this,\u201d \u201cdon\u2019t do this\u201d) are not permitted.
\nThe summary box provides brief answers (one or two short sentences each) to the three questions below. The maximum length is 125 words total (100 words total for Notes from the Field), including the three question headings.
\nBelow are two summary box examples that meet the requirements. Authors can refer to published reports for additional examples.
\nSummary
\nWhat is already known about this topic?
\nEight states, including Colorado, have legalized recreational marijuana use among persons aged \u226521 years. The association between marijuana use and occupational injury is of public health concern.
\nWhat is added by this report?
\nDuring 2014\u20132015, 14.6% of 10,169 Colorado adult workers reported using marijuana in the previous 30 days. The highest prevalences of current use were among young adults and men, and among adults working in the Accommodation and Food Services industry (30.1%) and Food Preparation and Serving occupation (32.2%).
\nWhat are the implications for public health practice?
\nBy understanding the occupations and industries of workers who report recreational marijuana use, employers can develop appropriately targeted workplace marijuana policies and safety awareness campaigns.
\nSummary
\nWhat is already known about this topic?
\nSurveillance is the cornerstone of polio eradication efforts.
\nWhat is added by this report?
\nIn 2017, 22 wild poliovirus cases were reported from two countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan), the fewest number ever reported globally. Polio cases caused by circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses increased from four in 2016 to 96 in 2017 because of large outbreaks in Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Although surveillance performance indicators are improving at the national level, gaps remain, including at subnational levels.
\nWhat are the implications for public health practice?
\nAs polio cases decline, sensitive and timely surveillance becomes even more important. As long as polioviruses circulate in any country, all countries remain at risk.
\nSubmit each figure as a separate file; do not embed figures in the report text file.
\nFigure titles should be descriptive and complete, including the who, what, where, and when of the data being presented, so that a reader can understand what the data represent without reading the text.
\nCharts, Graphics, and Maps
\nPhotographic images
\nNonquantitative information unsuitable for tables or figures can be submitted as boxed text (typically a bulleted list). During review and production, editors will make a final determination on the format of the information.
\nReports, including any supplementary tables and figures, with at least one CDC author must be cleared at CDC before submission to MMWR. Proof of completed clearance should accompany the submission of the documents. The corresponding CDC author should ensure that the documents have received clearance from the following entities:
\nIn accordance with ICMJE recommendations, authors must state if any artificial intelligence (AI)\u2013assisted technologies (e.g., large language models, chatbots, or image creators) were used in the development of their submitted work. In both the cover letter and submitted work, authors should describe their use of this technology. Authors should carefully review and edit the result, because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must confirm that there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.
\nAuthors must adhere to guidance outlined in the Author Submission Checklist at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdfs/author_checklist.pdf.
\nThe corresponding author should submit the final, cleared report through MMWR ScholarOne Manuscripts. In separate attachments, the author should send the following items:
\nUnless MMWR has agreed to expedite publication, reports should be submitted at least 5 weeks (35 calendar days) before the desired Friday issue date.
\nMMWR editors determine acceptance of submissions. Submissions that do not include CDC staff authors are first sent to CDC subject matter experts for opinions on suitability and relevance for MMWR. If a report has at least one CDC author and has received CDC clearance, it should be submitted as a CDC report and not as a non-CDC report, even in the case where the submitting and corresponding author is not a CDC employee
\nAfter a report has been accepted for publication, MMWR will assign a publication date, subject to author availability. In general, it takes approximately 5 weeks from submission to publication of a full report. During a large-scale public health emergency, this timeline can be extended for submissions unrelated to the emergency.
\nMMWR might agree to publish certain urgent reports on an expedited timeline. Submission deadlines for reports that MMWR has agreed to expedite are established on an individual basis.
\nTo assist programs and MMWR in planning and scheduling (e.g., in conjunction with health observances such as World AIDS Day), MMWR will, at times, issue tentative publication dates for reports that have not yet been accepted for publication.
\nAfter a report is accepted and scheduled, MMWR technical writer-editors begin the final editing and production process, with responsibility of ensuring that reports conform to established editorial and MMWR style and format conventions. Changes made during this process might differ from edits and revisions made during the clearance, review, and acceptance processes and from previously published MMWR reports.
\nSupplementary tables and figures are placed in CDC Stacks for online access and are not published with the report. Authors can submit up to three supplementary tables and figures to MMWR with their report. Alternatively, MMWR editors can suggest that content submitted with the report is more appropriate as a supplementary table or figure. No other type of supplementary material is accepted. Supplementary tables and figures are named inline in the report text; they are not cited in the references or footnotes sections.
\nThe corresponding author is responsible for
\nThe corresponding author should begin the CDC Stacks process as soon as a technical writer-editor has been assigned to the report. Below are the steps involved:
\nThe assigned MMWR technical writer-editor
\nTo preserve the integrity of MMWR publications, authors should not disclose a submitted report\u2019s title, content, or expected date of publication to others or the media before the embargo lifts. Typically, the embargo lifts and reports are posted on the web on Thursday at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
\nTo give reporters time to research and develop accurate materials and consult appropriate experts per ICMJE best practices, CDC\u2019s Office of Communications shares an embargoed MMWR media package (e-book [the articles] and communication materials) when it becomes available (typically Wednesday afternoon).
\nCommunication materials should not be shared with media before the timelines stated above unless granted previous permission from MMWR.
\nCommunication materials should not be shared with partner organizations before the timelines stated above for media unless granted previous permission from MMWR.
\nIf a trusted partner organization requires advance notice or limited preview of a forthcoming publication, authors must consult with the MMWR health communications team at MMWRcommunications@cdc.gov.
\nCorrections of errors preserve the integrity of the scientific and public health literature. They also protect the reputations of authors, the MMWR Series, and CDC by demonstrating the commitment to ensuring accurate science in MMWR.
\nRequests to publish corrections should be sent to your report editor, who will consult the managing editor to determine if an erratum is needed. If an erratum is needed, your report editor will draft it for your review and will schedule it for publication in the Weekly as soon as possible.
\nIf pervasive errors are brought to the attention of authors or MMWR editors, it\u2019s our obligation to transparently correct the literature. After reviewing the nature and source of the errors for each case, MMWR will assess the report in collaboration with the CDC Office of Science and other CDC leadership, as indicated. In cases with suspected scientific misconduct, the Office of Science will determine the appropriate corrective action. In cases of inadvertent, pervasive errors, the MMWR Editor-in-Chief will determine the appropriate method for correcting the report based on current scientific publication guidance. Below are the most likely paths for correcting inadvertent, pervasive errors.
\nFor reports with pervasive errors but the corrections do not change the conclusions or interpretation of the report, MMWR will correct the literature through the mechanism of \u201cCorrect and Republish.\u201d MMWR will follow National Library of Medicine guidance to ensure transparency and clarity for readers (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/policy/errata.html).
\nFor reports that have pervasive errors that change the interpretation or the conclusions when corrected, MMWR will correct the literature through the mechanism of \u201cRetraction.\u201d In collaboration with authors, MMWR will determine whether it is appropriate to also republish the report at the time of retraction, and MMWR will follow National Library of Medicine guidance to ensure transparency and clarity for readers.
\nNOTE: If pervasive errors have been identified, contact the Editor-in-Chief at ckent@cdc.gov and the Editor (Weekly) at jgindler@cdc.gov as soon as possible.
\nMailing address: Editor-in-Chief; Executive Editor; Editor (Weekly); Managing Editor; or Lead Technical Writer-Editor (Weekly), MMWR Office, Mailstop V25-5, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30333.
\nEditor-in-Chief: Charlotte K. Kent, ckent@cdc.gov, 404-498-0576.
\nExecutive Editor: Rachel Gorwitz (Acting), rgorwitz@cdc.gov, 404-639-8323.
\nEditor (Weekly): Jacqueline Gindler, jgindler@cdc.gov, 404-498-6445.
\nEditor (Weekly): Paul Siegel, pzsiegel@cdc.gov, 404-906-9792.
\nManaging Editor: Terisa F. Rutledge, trutledge@cdc.gov, 404-498-2371.
\nLead Technical Writer-Editor (Weekly): Teresa Hood, tmhood@cdc.gov, 404-498-2852.
\n