INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS
PJNS is a quarterly, peer reviewed medical journal and follows the uniform requirements for Manuscripts (URM) submitted to Biomedical journals as approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as revised in 1997 (N Eng J Med 1997; 336:309-15). Detailed information about updated URM can be downloaded from ICMJE. PJNS follows the COPE guidelines regarding publication ethics and malpractices.
The submitted manuscripts must not be under consideration by any other publication at the time of submission. Only individuals making substantial contribution to the content of a paper according to ICMJE guidelines should be included as authors. Generic drug names and SI units (except for blood pressure in mmHg and hemoglobin in g/dL) should be used throughout. All submissions should be accompanied by a brief covering note explaining why the paper is suitable for PJNS. In addition, all submissions should begin with a title page including title of the paper, list of authors’ names, institutional or organizational affiliation, and contact information for the corresponding author.
The submissions need to be made through the online portal used in the journal. Submissions will not be accepted through email, post, or any other means. The authors must submit Covering Letter, Authors’ Undertaking/Declaration and proof of Ethical/Institutional approval with their submissions.
A covering letter should be kept succinct and include the following information. (Maximum 250 words)
Authors undertaking/declaration should be downloaded and completely filled before submitting to PJNS.
Ethical approval of research in the form of letters from the ethical review committee (ERC), ethical review board (ERB), institutional review board (IRB), advanced studies and research board (ASRB) or any other relevant form of ethical approval is mandatory for all original articles manuscripts submitted to PJNS.
CHARGES FOR AUTHORS
There are no submission, processing, or publication charges to publish in PJNS.
PJNS follows the ICMJE criteria for authorship. The author should:
1) Have made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2) Have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3) Have given final approval of the version to be published.
4) Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
TYPES OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED
Contributions to PJNS are welcome in the following categories:
All manuscripts of original research should contain following sections:-
The title page should carry
1) The title of the article, which should be concise, specific and informative.
2) Full name of each author, with his or her highest academic degree(s) and institutional affiliation.
3) The name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be attributed.
4) Disclaimers, if any.
5) The name, email and postal address of the correspondence author.
The second page should carry structured abstract of not more than 250 words.
The abstract should state the:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Background and purpose of the study or investigation;
METHODS: study design, place and duration of study, basic procedures as selection of study subjects or laboratory animals, observational and analytical methods;
RESULTS: main findings giving specific data and their statistical significance, and
CONCLUSION: It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations.
KEY WORDS: Below the abstract authors should provide, and identify as such, 3 to 10 key words or short phrases that will assist indexers in cross-indexing the article and may be published with the abstract. Terms from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) list of Index Medicus should be used. If suitable MeSH-terms are not yet available for recently introduced terms, present terms may be used.
* The main manuscript of original article is divided into subsections according to “IMRaD” structure, with the headings Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion.
The total word count of the main manuscript must not exceed 4000 words.
Provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance).
State the rationale, specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation. Cite only directly pertinent references, and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.
Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as the use of P values, which fails to convey important quantitative information. Discuss the eligibility of experimental subjects. Give details about randomization. Describe the methods for and success of any blinding of observations. Give numbers of observations and report losses to observation (such as dropouts from a clinical trial). Specify any general-use computer programs used. Put a general description of methods in the Methods section. When data are summarized in the Results section, specify the statistical methods used to analyze them. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess its support. Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries; do not duplicate data in graphs and tables. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as “random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.” Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols.
List all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. All persons must have given written permission to be acknowledged.
Authors should declare any potential conflict of interest and any financial support for the study may be disclosed as well.
A systematic review paper should have a structured Abstract of no more than 250 words using headlines as Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis and Conclusions and with 3-10 key words for indexing.
Objective: Give precise statement of the primary objective for the review. Define if the review emphasizes cause and diagnosis, prognosis, therapy and intervention, or prevention. Define if the review would be highly selective as including only randomized controlled trials (RCT) or have wider inclusion criteria.
Data Sources: Present data sources used, including any time restriction.
Study Selection: Describe criteria to select studies for detailed review. Specify methods used, as blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers.
Data Extraction: Describe how extraction was made, including assessment of quality and validity.
Data Synthesis: Present the main results of the review and state major identified sources of variation between studies.
Conclusion: Give a clear statement of the conclusions made, its generalizability and limitations.
The Introduction of the paper could be similar to an original report, but without any longer literature survey, only reviewing shortly previous structural reviews and stating the reason and aim of the present review.
The Methods section may have subheadings corresponding to the Abstract (Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction) and should include clearly defined and reported inclusion and exclusion criteria, and specification of databases and other formal register, conference proceedings, reference lists and trial authors, which are used as sources. The full search strategy should be given so that it is easy to reproduce. The stages of selection usually include several steps, each undertaken by at least two independent researchers (identified in the Methods). There will be an initial selection from titles/ abstracts to select the articles to be examined in full. The full articles should be re-screened against the selection criteria. The articles fulfilling the criteria should be subjected to quality assessment. Summarize in a flow chart with the number of articles selected and reasons for rejection at each stage. The quality of the methodology should be assessed having an appropriate tool and also for outcome measures and blinding of outcome assessors. The tool that is most appropriate will depend on the extent and nature of the anticipated research evidence.
The Result section corresponds to Data synthesis in the Abstract and may present tables with long lists of selected articles. Extracted data from trials should, when available, include report of randomization method, study population, intervention methods and delivery, reasons to losses at follow-up, information related to treatment monitoring, post-intervention assessments and follow-up. Report the major outcomes, which were pooled, and include odds ratios or effects sizes. Use when applicable meta-analysis. Numerical values should, when possible, be accompanied with confidence intervals. State the major identified sources of variation between reported studies, as differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. Tables and figures must be self-explanatory and have appropriate title or caption. The methods for synthesis of evidence should be pre-determined. Sometimes it may not be possible to pool the data, but a synthesis of best evidence ought to be given.
The Discussion section should be structured similar to an original report. The findings should be discussed with respect to the degree of consistency, variation, and generalizability. New contribution to the literature based on the review conducted and where information is insufficient must be stated. Providing the limitations of the review would be helpful. Suggest the need for new studies and future research agenda.
Length of paper: The total length of the text should usually not be more than 5000 words (corresponding to 8-9 printed pages) and in addition tables and the reference list. The reference list should be comprehensive and will therefore often be rather long. However, in the printed version of a review paper normally not more than 100 references will be accepted. If needed and without an upper limit, additional references may be published only electronically with a link to such an Appendix given in the original version of the paper.
Narrative review article:
A narrative review should have a structured Abstract which should not exceed 250 words, under the following headlines Background and Objectives, Methods, Review, Conclusion summarizing the current status of the knowledge about the topic reviewed followed by 3-10 key words for indexing.
Introduction: This should provide a background to a review which focuses on relevant literature published over the last few years that has advanced our understanding of the issue under consideration. The headlines in the review have to be chosen according to the need of that particular review.
Methods: Proper Research strategy should be given. Give in detail the strategy for inclusion of article in the review. Details of the database searched and the time period for which it was searched should be stated.
The Review and Discussion section could be structured along the lines for an original report. At the end of discussion, limitations of the study and key message may be given.
Conclusions: Conclusions of the article also highlighting the problems, or areas for future research may be included.
Word count: Up to 4000 words.
References: up to 50.
Letter to the Editor:
Letters to the Editor are considered for publication (subject to editing and abridgment) provided they do not contain material that has been submitted or published elsewhere. The letter must be typewritten and single-spaced. Its text, not including reference, must not exceed 250 words if it is in reference to a recent journal article, or 400 words in all other cases (please provide a word count). It must have no more than five references and one figure or table. Letters referring to a recent journal article must be received within four weeks of its publication. Please include your full address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address
These are short papers providing discussion and analysis on practical issues relevant to contemporary clinical practice or issues. Word length 1,000-1,500; up to 10 references.
These are articles based on personal viewpoints articulated through opinion, debate or controversy. Topics should be of broad interest. Word length 1,000 words; up to 5 references.
Short Communications should be of about 1000 – 1200 words, having a non-structured abstract of about 150 words with two tables or illustrations and not more than 6 references.
Book Reviews – These are critical appraisals of books that would hold interest for professionals in any neuroscience field. Submission in this category is generally by invitation; however, unsolicited manuscripts are also welcome. Word length 500 words.
For enquires related to manuscripts under process, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org , citing the manuscript number.