Abstract: . . .  required. Manuscript disapproval is binding on NHLBI employees, who must have Institute approval for their names to appear as authors or co-authors. If such a manuscript is disapproved, it must either be revised so as to be approved by the Institute or NHLBI staff who are co-authors must remove their names from it. Staff are reminded that each author is responsible for everything in the manuscript, irrespective of his Page 12 The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Page 12 of 12 or her involvement in any specific part of the research effort. When appropriate, the manuscript should contain a disclaimer, indicating that what is being reported or claimed does not necessarily reflect the views of the NHLBI, NIH, or DHHS. Criteria for Disapproval Three primary reasons may cause a manuscript to be disapproved: 1) Concern that the analysis or interpretation . . .
. . .  Manuscript disapproval is binding on NHLBI employees, who must have Institute approval for their names to appear as authors or co-authors. If such a manuscript is disapproved, it must either be revised so as to be approved by the Institute or NHLBI staff who are co-authors must remove their names from it. Staff are reminded that each author is responsible for everything in the manuscript, irrespective of his Page 12 The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Page 12 of 12 or her involvement in any specific part of the research effort. When appropriate, the manuscript should contain a disclaimer, indicating that what is being reported or claimed does not necessarily reflect the views of the NHLBI, NIH, or DHHS. Criteria for Disapproval Three primary reasons may cause a manuscript to be disapproved: 1) Concern that the analysis or interpretation . . .
. . .  presented; or 3) Conflict with NHLBI or DHHS policies. Differences of opinion about the scientific interpretation of results can be a reason for returning a paper without approval, if reviewers' opinions are well-founded and adequately justified. Interpretations that overstep the data; for instance, implying causality where none can be inferred, or suggesting the need for intervention when it has not been proven to be effective, can be highly embarrassing to the authors and the Institute.  . . .
--3000,3,500,2758,23579