Manuscripts may be rejected without peer review by the Editor-in-Chief, if they do not comply with the Instructions to Authors, in case of an ethical issue or plagiarism, and if they are beyond the scope of the journal.
The title of the article should be concise, brief but comprehensive. It should provoke the readers to read the full text. The title should accurately reflect the outcome of the study. It should also be the research question or the answer of it.
The abstract must summarize the manuscript. No discrepancies between the abstract and the article must be. Keywords must be concordant with the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) vocabulary terms, and three to six keywords should be listed.
The authors must have Informed Consent and Ethical Committee Approval (date and number) in the Patients/Materials and Methods section. The methods should explain the steps taken to produce the results. It should contain adequate details for other researchers to replicate the study.[1,2]
The results must be presented in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations. Data in the text should not be repeated in the tables or illustrations. Avoid repeating yourself.
In the Discussion section, start emphasizing the new and the most important finding(s) of the study. Relate the observations to other relevant studies. Finally, present limitations and conclusion short and clear enough.
The format of the references and abbreviated title of the journal must be according to the style used by the PubMed/MEDLINE with year, volume, and inclusive page numbers. Recent references must be preferred.
Illustrations and figures must be original, professionally drawn, and photographed.
Finally, the authors must check the following list to reduce the possibility of rejection.
• Has the manuscript adhered to all the author instructions?
• Does the manuscript add something to the existing literature?
• Is the title reflective of the content of the manuscript?
• Does the abstract convey the key message clearly?
• Is the purpose, research question/hypothesis clearly stated in the Introduction?
• Is the methodology detailed?
• Are the statistics in a clear and detailed manner presented?
• Are the results explicitly presented?
• Is the Discussion relevant to the manuscript’s core theme?
• Are the strengths and limitations addressed?
• Are the conclusions clearly supported by the data?