• Basic Instructions
    • Commenting System for Readers
    • Create an Account
    • facebook OAuth
    • Google + OAuth
    • Linkedin OAuth
    • OAuth in Neoscriber Journals
    • ORCID
    • ORCID Advantages
    • Sing In
    • Edit Profile
    • Forgot Password
    • Statistics
    • Public Search in Journals
    • Share an article in Linkedin
    • Publons
    • Users Messages
  • General Information
    • User Management
      • Authors Responsibilities
      • Complaints and Appeals
      • Journal Management
  • Rules and Regulations
    • Publication Ethics: Rules and Policies
      • Human Rights
      • Animal Rights
  • Instructions for Authors
    • Article Types
      • Brief Report
      • Case Report
      • Clinical Trials
      • Correction
      • Letter to the Editor
      • Rapid Communication
      • Research Articles
      • Review Article
      • Systematic Review or Meta Analysis
      • Corresponding Article Types in Medline vs. PMC
      • Meeting Report
    • How to Submit a Manuscript?
    • How to Write a Article?
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Instructions for AE
  • Instructions for EIC
Brief Report

Short reports should comprise sections including Background, Objectives (optional), Methods, Results and Discussion with no more than 2 tables or figures and up to 20 references.

Case Report

A case report is a case study, case report, or other description of a case that should contain a structured/nonstructured abstract. Case reports should comprise sections including Introduction, Case Presentation, and Conclusions in Abstract, and Introduction, Case Presentation, and Discussion in the text with no more than 2 tables or figures and up to 20 references.

Clinical Trials

This journal requires registration of randomized clinical trials in such public trial registries as those of the National Institutes of Health and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) has established a requirement that all clinical trials be entered in a public registry before the onset of patient enrollment, as a condition of consideration for publication. The definition of a clinical trial as established by the ICMJE is any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention and comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relation between a medical intervention and a health outcome. ClinicalTrials.gov or similar registries provide a vehicle which allows organizations and individuals to provide the data requested by ICMJE, which has adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) minimal registration data set. Clinical trials should have a NCT registration code or IRCT code or other similar codes (see below) which can be Starting on July 2010. The journal will be including the identifier number in Clinical Trial articles. This rule is concluded from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Web site for their editorial and updates on the topic of registering clinical trials before publication of the results. The ICMJE recommends that the clinical trial registration number be included at the end of the abstract. A sample of general display format for the code obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov is: an alphabetic label of ClinicalTrials.gov followed by a slash and then an 11-digit alphanumeric string starting with NCT followed by eight numbers. For instance, an example in the Citation format display would be: ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT00000161.

 

Which trials registries are acceptable to tthis journal?
Phase III trials must be registered, and phase II trials are appropriate to register. Most phase I trials do not need to be registered. Please clearly state in the methods section of the manuscript the trial registration number including where the registration is publicly available. Visit the website of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for more information. This Journal accepts registration in the following registries:

  1. www.irct.ir
  2. www.actr.org.au
  3. www.clinicaltrials.gov
  4. www.ISRCTN.org
  5. www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm
  6. www.trialregister.nl

 

More information and update can be found at: http://www.icmje.org/faq_clinical.html and Primary Registries in the WHO Registry Network

Correction

A modification or correction of previously published material; this is sometimes called “errata”. Correction refers to changes the author wants to introduce post-acceptance, at any time thereafter, during the publication processes or post-publication. If the author determines that it is scientifically necessary, then it should be made. A Correction is then created and published in the next available issue. In addition, it is linked online to the published article, and if the article is referenced, the Correction information should be included.

Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor about a recent journal article are referring to a recent article in this journal must be received within three months of its publication. For example, a letter referring to an article published in the January issue must be submitted online no later than March 31st. Letters submitted after the allowed time will not be considered.

A maximum of three authors and 10 references are allowed. Neither tables nor figures are allowed.

Letters to the Editor NOT referring to a recent journal article will be prepared for this purpose: Original research that is of interest but does not fulfill all the requirements needed for publication as a full-length manuscript can be submitted as a letter to the editor. The letter must have a title and a maximum of three authors.

No more than 10 references and either one table or one figure are allowed.

Limits:

Letters maximum number of references is 10, maximum Number of illustrations/Tables is 1.

Rapid Communication

For a rapid communication, abstract (structured or non-structured ) and manuscript body into Background, Objectives (optional), Methods, Results, and Discussion are required. Rapid communications maximum number of references is 30 and maximum Number of Figures/Tables is 3.

Research Articles

Research Articles also are called “Original Articles”, which are considered as the common types of articles. The content of the paper must justify its length. For the original research, traditional sections are required including: Title, Keywords, Addresses and corresponding author's address, the Structured Abstract, Background, Objectives (optional), Methods, Results, Discussion, References, Acknowledgements. The legends are required to illustrate Figures and Tables. Research articles maximum number of references is 55, maximum Number of illustrations/Tables is 5.

Review Article

Review Articles maximum number of references is 80, maximum number of illustrations/Tables is 5. In a review article both abstract (if structured) and text of the manuscript, include following items:

1) Context: It includes 1 or 2 sentences describing the clinical question or issue and its importance in clinical practice or public health.

2) Evidence Acquisition: This section describes the data sources, including the research strategies, time of study, and other sources of the used materials, such as subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. It explains the methods used for quality assessment and the inclusion of identified articles.

3) Results: This section addresses the major findings of the review of the clinical issue or topic in an evidence-based, objective, and balanced style, emphasizing the available highest-quality evidences.

4) Conclusions: It clearly states the conclusions to answer the posed questions, if applicable, based on the conclusions of the available evidences, and it emphasizes how clinicians should apply the current knowledge.

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. Systematic Reviews maximum number of references is 100, maximum number of illustrations/Tables is 6. For Systematic Reviews, both abstract and text of the manuscript should be subdivided into the following sequential sections:

1) Context: Provide a sentence or two explaining the importance of the review question.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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).
6) 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.
7) 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 specfic field of journal. Systematic reviews abstracts to be structured as above. N.B. For advice on writing systematic reviews consult: The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook
Meta-analysis of observational studies: A MOOSE checklist is required for meta-analysis of observational studies

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. Systematic Reviews maximum number of references is 100, maximum number of illustrations/Tables is 6. For Systematic Reviews, both abstract and text of the manuscript should be subdivided into the following sequential sections:

1) Context: Provide a sentence or two explaining the importance of the review question.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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).
6) 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.
7) 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 specfic field of journal. Systematic reviews abstracts to be structured as above. N.B. For advice on writing systematic reviews consult: The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook
Meta-analysis of observational studies: A MOOSE checklist is required for meta-analysis of observational studies

Medline Article Types

Authors of journals indexed in Medline are required to submit their manuscripts based on the below article types:

  •     Addresses
  •     Bibliography
  •     Case Reports
  •     Classical Article
  •     Clinical Conference
  •     Clinical Trial
  •     Congresses
  •     Consensus Development Conference
  •     Consensus Development Conference, NIH
  •     Corrected and Republished Article
  •     Editorial
  •     Festschrift
  •     Guideline
  •     Interview
  •     Journal Article
  •     Lectures
  •     Letter
  •     Meta-Analysis
  •     News
  •     Newspaper Article
  •     Observational Study
  •     Patient Education Handout
  •     Practice Guideline
  •     Published Erratum
  •     Retraction of Publication
  •     Review
  •     Video-Audio Media
  •     Webcasts

 


Corresponding article types in Medline vs. PMC

Link: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/pubtypes.html

Corresponding Article Types in Medline vs. PMC

The below table shows the corresponding equivalent types of article in Medline vs. Pubmed Central.

Medline Type PMC Type
Addresses

oration

Bibliography

product-review

Journal Article

brief-report

Case Reports

Case-Reports

Classical Article

research-article

Clinical Conference

meeting-report

Clinical Trial

research-article

Congresses

meeting-report

Consensus Development Conference

meeting-report

Consensus Development Conference, NIH

meeting-report

Corrected and Republished Article

correction

Editorial

editorial

Festschrift

calendar

Guideline

research-article

Interview

discussion

Journal Article

research-article

Lectures

oration

Letter

letter

Meta-Analysis

research-article

News

news

Newspaper Article

news

Observational Study

research-article

Patient Education Handout

discussion

Practice Guideline

discussion

Published Erratum

correction

Retraction of Publication

retraction

Review

review

Video-Audio Media

case-report

Webcasts

case-report

Link:

Meeting Report

Only invited authors are permitted to submit a meeting report for the journal. Basic structure of a meeting report contains: Purpose of meeting, summary of presented findings, recommendation for future research. Names and affiliations of key speakers should be presented in supplemental information, not as a part of text.