Author Guidelines

Manuscript Submission:

Manuscripts must be submitted in English. Contributions will be considered for publication with the understanding that they are exclusively submitted to IRJPS, have not been previously published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review or thesis), and are not under consideration by another journal. The covering letter should designate one author as “corresponding author” and should make it clear that the manuscript has been seen and approved by all authors and that they have taken due care to ensure the integrity of the work. Manuscript submission to IRJPS is possible through online submission: We provide an online submission and peer review system that enable authors to submit their papers online.

Types of Manuscripts:

Authors are invited to submit the following manuscript types for publication:

Original article- should include title page, abstract, keywords, introduction, materials/patients and methods, results, discussion, Conclusion, acknowledgment, references, tables, figures, and legends, enumerated from the title page. The length of the text should not exceed 4500 words excluding the references. All Clinical Trials should include patients’ informed consent forms and the approval of the bioethics committee of the corresponding university/institution. 

 Review-are solicited by the editor only. No other forms are accepted in this journal. Systemic reviews with sound methodology do not require the above-mentioned condition and are greatly encouraged.

Case report & special report: should be limited to 2000 words. Both should include abstract, keywords, case presentation, discussion, acknowledgment, references, and 1 – 4 figures. Necessary documentations of the case(s) like pathology reports, laboratory test reports, and Radiologic images should be included in the submission package. Brief reports should not have more than one figure and/or table.

 Editorial- provides commentary and analysis about an article in the issue of the Journal in which they appear. They may include 1 figure or 2 tables. They are nearly always invited, although uninvited editorials may occasionally be considered. Editorials are limited to 800 words, with up to 12 references.

Original articles rank first in importance when determining the order of publication.

Structure of Manuscripts:

Title Page:

Should include: manuscript type; complete title; author(s) information, including first name, last name, affiliation and detailed
information of corresponding author; postal address, phone and fax number and email address; running title ≤50
characters, including spaces. ORCID ID of first author and corresponding author should be included.

Abstract:

The abstract should be confined to essentials (methods preferred, results obtained) and be structured in
introduction, material and methods, results and conclusions. Also, it shlould be no longer than 250 words.

Key Words:

For indexing purposes, each submitted article should include three to five keywords chosen from the
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh)

Main document:

Necessary information has been given in the Types of Manuscript section.

Illustration & Tables:

Figures and tables should be cited in order in the text; their position should be marked in the
margin of the manuscript. Arabic numbering should be used for both figures and tables. Legends for illustrations
should be typewritten, double-spaced, on a separate sheet, and included at the end of the manuscript. A legend
must accompany each illustration.

Appendix:

Appendix section including acknowledgment, conflict of interest, funding, and authors’ contribution,
should be addressed at the end of the manuscript text in all types of the articles.

References
References should be compiled at the end of the article according to the order of citation in the text, not alphabetically. They
should be typewritten, double-spaced, under the heading REFERENCES. All reference information must be accurate
and authors are responsible for the accuracy of the bibliographic information provided. Abbreviations for titles of
medical periodicals should conform to those used in the latest edition of Index Medicus. Mark reference citations by
superscript Arabic numbers. Personal communications and unpublished data including manuscripts submitted but not
yet accepted for publication should not be used as a reference; nonetheless, they may be placed in parentheses in the
text. Inclusive page numbers should be given for all references. Print surnames and initials of all authors when there
are three or less. In the case of four or more authors, the names of the first three authors followed by et al, should
be listed.
Examples of references

Journal article, one author:
1. Valayer J: Conventional treatment of biliary atresia: Long-term results. J Pediatr Surg 1996;31:1546-1551.

Journal article, two or three authors:
2. Atwell JD, Spargo PM: The provision of safe surgery for children. Arch Dis Child 1992;67:345-349.

Journal article, more than three authors:
3. Seo T, Ito T, Ishiguro Y, et al: New neonatal extracorporeal membrane xygenation circuit with a self-regulating
pump. Surgery 1994;115:463-472.

Journal article, in press:
4. Coran AG: The hyperalimentation of infants. Biol Neonate (in press)

Complete book:
5. Rowe MI, O’Neill JA, Grosfeld JL, et al: Essentials of Pediatric Surgery. St Louis, MO, Mosby Year-Book, 1995

Chapter of book:
6. Skandalakis JE, Gray SW, Ricketts R: The esophagus, in Skandalakis JE, Gray SW (eds): Embryology for
Surgeons. Baltimore, MD, Williams & Wilkins, 1994, pp 65-112

Paper presented at a meeting:
7. Bealer JF, Vanderwall K, Adzick NS, et al: A new treatment option for patients with congenital diaphragmatic
hernia. Presented at the 14th annual meeting of the International Fetal Medicine and Surgery Society, Newport, RI,
May 3-6, 1996.

Web references
As a minimum, the full URL should be given and the date when the reference was last accessed. Any further
information, if known (DOI, author names, dates, reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given. Web
references can be listed separately (e.g., after the reference list) under a different heading if desired, or can be included
in the reference list.

5. Cover Letter

The authors must warrant that they have participated sufficiently in the work described to justify authorship and that the article is original, not under consideration for publication by another journal and has not been published previously. The authors must accept full responsibility for the conduct of the study, state that they had access to the data and jointly controlled and agreed on the decision to publish.

The authors should also state if the manuscript has been presented elsewhere, in whole or in abstract form as a conference presentation or published material. If no statement is made in this regard, it will be presumed that the authors deny previous publication of the material.

In the case of the use of copyright-protected material the responsibility of obtaining permission is that of the authors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors are asked to disclose any financial relations and conflicts of interest they may have with a manufacturer or distributor whose product is part of the submitted manuscript. Such interests do not disqualify a paper from consideration and are not disclosed to reviewers. A statement to this effect should be included in the cover letter.

6. Ethical Considerations

An appropriate institutional review board approval is required for experimental investigations of human or animal subjects. Those investigators who do not have formal ethics review committees (institutional or regional) should follow the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. For investigations of human subjects, state in the Methods section the manner in which informed consent was obtained from the subjects.

We believe in the ethical standards described by the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Authors should abide by these standards. For all manuscripts reporting data from human or animal participants, approval of the ethics committee is required, as well as any necessary HIPAA consent, and should be described in the Methods section with the full name of the committee. All clinical trials must be registered in a public trials registry and the registry and registry number should be mentioned.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors are expected to disclose any commercial associations or sources of support that might pose a conflict of interest regarding the submitted article. All funding sources supporting the work must be declared in the appendix section at the end of the manuscript. Whole affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization on entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matters or materials of the research discussed (examples: employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interest, patent-licensing arrangements) should be cited as conflict of interest at the end of manuscript text file. A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest. Editors should use ICMJE form and procedure for managing the conflicts of interest issues.

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices

This journal is committed to follow and apply guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its reviewing and publishing process and issues.

1. Editors

Chief Editor is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors

1.1 strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;

1.2 strive to constantly improve their journal;

1.3 have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;

1.4 champion freedom of expression;

1.5 maintain the integrity of the academic record;

1.6 preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;

1.7 are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Best Practice for Editors would include

• actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes


• encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings


• supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct


• supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics


• assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct


• ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context.

2. Readers

2.1 Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

    Best practice for editors would include:

• ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers including statistical review.


• ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified


• adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists


• considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles


• adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)

3. informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

4. Relations with authors

4.1 Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.

4.2 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.

4.3 New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.

4.4 A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.

4.5 Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.

4.6 Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.

4.7 Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Best practice for editors would include:

• reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines


• publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication


• ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)


• respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable


• publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct


• publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

5. Relations with reviewers

5.1 Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.

5.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

5.3 Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Best practice for editors would include:

• encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)


• encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism


• considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)


• sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks


• seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal


• encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process


• monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard


• developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance


• ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews


• ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed


• using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)


• following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

6. Relations with editorial board members

6.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

Best practice for editors would include:

• having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review


• identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
  
  
  
  • regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board
    
    
    
    • providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
    
    
    • acting as ambassadors for the journal
    
    
    • supporting and promoting the journal
    
    
    • seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
    
    
    • reviewing submissions to the journal
    
    
    • accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
    
    
    • attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge

8. Editorial and peer review processes

8.1 Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.

8.2 Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

Best practice for editors would include:

• ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management


• keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances


• adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves


• reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible


• referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected


• considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

9. Quality assurance

9.1 Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.

Best practice for editors would include:

• having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised


• basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

10. Protecting individual data

10.1 Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.

Best practice for editors would include:

• publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors

Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.

11. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

11.1 Editors should endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.

11.2 Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

Best practice for editors would include:

• being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed


• ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice.


• appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically

12. Dealing with possible misconduct

12.1 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.

12.2 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.

12.3 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.

12.4 Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.

12.5 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

13. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

13.1 Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

13.2 Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.

Best practice for editors would include:

• taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)


• ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)


• having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available

14. Intellectual property

14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with Negah Publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Best practice for editors would include:

• adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)


• supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism


• being prepared to work with Negah Publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g.  by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

15. Encouraging debate

15.1 Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.

15.2 Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.

15.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.

Best practice for editors would include:

• being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal

16. Complaints

16.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.

16.2 Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.

17. Commercial considerations

17.1 Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).

17.2 Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.

17.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.

Best practice for editors would include:

• publishing a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)


• ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal


• ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations

 7. Plagiarism check

This Journal has accepted all terms and conditions of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on plagiarism. Therefore, in any case of plagiarism, which is brought to the journal’s editors attention and accompanied with convincing evidence, we act based on flowcharts and workflows determined in COPE. Meanwhile, to detect and prevent plagiarism in the journal articles, all submissions will be checked with Anti-Plagiarism Paper Check in both stages of submission and acceptance.

8. Submission

Submission can be pursued electronically only through the website. This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.  The submission and processing are free of charge.

9. Peer Review Process

All submissions are considered to be confidential and are peer-reviewed by at least 2 anonymous experts in the related field selected by the editors. The corresponding author is notified as soon as possible of the editor's decision to accept or reject the manuscript, or whether it requires modifications.

Each accepted manuscript is edited so that its message is clear and conforms to the style of the journal. The core of the contents is edited to the standards of the journal. Before publication, authors receive page proofs for minor corrections.