Submission of manuscript:
- Authors should submit both printed hard copy by post & electronic version (Microsoft word doc) of the manuscript to the editor via e-mail (email@example.com) or by a CD
- Accepted papers will be acknowledged and processed further; if the papers are rejected, the decision will be communicated to the corresponding author but the manuscripts will not be returned.
- Acceptance or rejection of the manuscript would be decided after peer review/the decision of editorial team.
- Acceptance or rejection of the manuscript for publication in journal would be informed to corresponding author within 72 working hours from the time of submission
Preparing a Manuscript:
- Authors should keep their manuscripts as short as they reasonably can
- Page number should appear in the lower right hand corner of each page, beginning with the title page.
- The language of manuscript must be simple and explicit.
- Author’s/Co-author’s name or any other identification should not appear anywhere in the body of the manuscript to facilitate blind review.
The following categories of manuscript are accepted for this journal:
- Original Research Articles
- Systematic Review or Meta Analysis
- Review Article
- Short communications
- Case reports
- Letter to Editor
Original Research Articles:
It should be arranged into the following sections:
- Structured Abstract
- Key words
It should be paginated as page 1 of the paper. It should carry the title, authors’ names and their affiliations, running title, address for correspondence including Email address & mobile number.
Must be informative, specific and short and not exceed 100 words.
Authors and affiliations:
The names of authors and their appropriate addresses should be given. It should be made clear which address relates to which author.
It is a short title typed in the journal at the right top corner of right hand page number of the article (except the lead page). A short running title of not more than 40 characters should be given.
Address for correspondence:
The corresponding author’s contact address should be given in the title page. The fax number (if available) may be mentioned. The email ID and mobile number of the corresponding author or the contact email ID must also be provided.
It must start on a new page carrying the following information: (a) Title (without authors names or affiliations), (b) Abstract body, (c) Key words, (d) Running title. It should not exceed 350 words excluding the title and the key words.
A list of 3-7 keywords should be provided which will help readers or indexing agencies in cross-indexing the study.
It should start on a new page. Essentially this section must introduce the subject and briefly say how the idea for research originated. Give a concise background of the study. Justification for research aims and objectives must be clearly mentioned without any ambiguity. The purpose of the study should be stated at the end. It should not exceed 500 words.
This section should deal with the materials used and the methodology – how the work was carried out. The procedure adopted should be described in sufficient detail to allow the study to be interpreted and repeated by the readers, if necessary. The number of subjects, the number of groups studied, the study design, sources of drugs with dosage regimen or instruments used, statistical methods and ethical aspects must be mentioned under the section in text format not in structured format. The methodology- the data collection procedure – must be described in sufficient detail.
The details of statistical tests used and the level of significance should be stated. If more than one test is used it is important to indicate which groups and parameters have been subjected to which test.
The results should be stated concisely without comments. It should be presented in logical sequence in the text with appropriate reference to tables and/or figures. The same data should not be presented in both tabular and graphic forms.
This section should deal with the interpretation, rather than recapitulation of results. It is important to discuss the new and significant observations in the light of previous work. Discuss also the weaknesses or pitfalls in the study. Repetition of information given under Introduction and Results should be avoided.
Conclusions must be drawn considering the strengths and weaknesses of the study. They must be conveyed in the last paragraph under Discussion. Make sure conclusions drawn should tally with the objectives stated under Introduction.
It should be typed in a new page. Acknowledge only persons who have contributed to the scientific content or provided technical support. Sources of financial support should be mentioned.
It should begin on a new page. Avoid citing abstracts as references. Papers which have been submitted and accepted but not yet published may be included in the list of references with the name of the journal and indicated as “In press”. A photocopy of the acceptance letter should be submitted with the manuscript. Information from manuscript “submitted” but “not yet accepted” should not be included. Avoid using abstracts as references.
The number of table should be 3 or 4 in number. Each table must be self-explanatory and presented in such a way that they are easily understandable without referring to the text. It is also important to mention whether the given values are mean, median, mean±SD or mean±SEM. All significant results must be indicated using asterisks. *Appropriate positions for the tables within the text may be indicated.
Each figure must be numbered and a short descriptive caption must be provided. For graphs and flow charts, it is not necessary to submit the photographs. A manually prepared or computer drawn figure (with good contrast) on a good quality paper is acceptable.
Systematic Review or Meta Analysis
Authors should report systematic reviews and meta-analyses in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. For Systematic Reviews, both abstract and text of the manuscript should be subdivided into the following sequential sections:
- Context: Provide a sentence or two explaining the importance of the review question.
- Objective: State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed.
- Data Sources: Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. Include in the search the most current information possible, ideally conducting the search several months before the date of manuscript submission. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human subjects). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the “Methods” section of the text.
- Study Selection: Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Under details of selection include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. Specify the method used to apply these criteria (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria.
- Data Extraction: Describe guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference). State the method by which the guidelines were applied (eg, independent extraction by multiple observers).
- Results: State the main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, and outline the methods used to obtain these results. For meta-analyses, state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Accompany numerical results by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. For evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests, include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. For assessments of prognosis, summarize survival characteristics and related variables. State the major identified sources of variation between studies, including differences in treatment protocols, protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates.
- Conclusions: Clearly state the conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise), limiting interpretation to the domain of the review.
Systematic reviews are welcome. They should be critical assessments of current evidence covering a broad range of topics of concern to those working in the specific field of journal. Systematic reviews should be 4000-5000 words (abstracts to be structured as above).
N.B.: For advice on writing systematic reviews consult: The Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook
Meta-analysis of RCT: A MOOSE checklist is required for meta-analysis of RCT.