I. Ownership of the Journal
The Journal of Ayurveda is the official publication of the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur under Ministry of AYUSH, New Delhi.
It is published quarterly i.e. January-March, April-June, July-September and October-December.
II. Authorship and Contributorship
II.A. Byline Authors
An “author” is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study, and biomedical authorship continues to have important academic, social, and financial implications. (1) In the past, readers were rarely provided with information about contributions to studies from those listed as authors and in acknowledgments. (2) Some journals now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy, as well as a policy on identifying who is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole.
While contributorship and guarantorship policies obviously remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, it leaves unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify for authorship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has recommended the following criteria for authorship; these criteria are still appropriate for those journals that distinguish authors from other contributors.
l Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
l When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript (3). These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict of interest disclosure forms. When submitting a group author manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and should clearly identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals will generally list other members of the group in the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the group name and the names of individuals the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript.
l Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
l All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
l Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Some journals now also request that one or more authors, referred to as “guarantors,” be identified as the persons who take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article, and publish that information.
Increasingly, authorship of multi-center trials is attributed to a group. All members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the above criteria for authorship.
The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed.
II.B. Contributors Listed in Acknowledgments
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Editors should ask authors to disclose whether they had writing assistance and to identify the entity that paid for this assistance. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under a heading such as “clinical investigators” or “participating investigators,” and their function or contribution should be described-for example, “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” or “provided and cared for study patients.”
Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, all persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.
II.C. Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution) or reviewer has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
All participants in the peer review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest.
II.D.1. Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Individual Authors’ Commitments
When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict of interest notification page that follows the title page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript.
Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.
Investigators must disclose potential conflicts to study participants and should state in the manuscript whether they have done so.
II.D.2. Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Project Support
Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.
Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to the data and their ability to analyze it independently, to prepare manuscripts, and to publish them. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases of other sorts. Include Information about the sponsor’s involvement in the methods section.
Sign a statement such as, “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”
II.E. Privacy and Confidentiality
II. E.1. Patients and Study Participants
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published.
Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity.
Informed consent is a must in prospective trials involving human beings. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the manuscript.
II.E.2. Authors and Reviewers
Manuscripts will be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise will be honored.
Information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) will not be disclosed to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.
Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise made public without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.
The reviewers’ identity will not be revealed to the author or anyone else without the reviewer’s permission.
Reviewers’ comments will be sent to other reviewers of the same manuscript, which helps reviewers learn from the review process, and reviewers may be notified of the editor’s decision.
II.F. Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
III. Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Biomedical Journals
III.A. Obligation to Publish Negative Studies
Editors will consider seriously for publication any carefully done study of an important question, relevant to readers, whether the results are negative (that is, convincingly allow the null hypothesis to be accepted) or positive (that is, allow the null hypothesis to be rejected).
III.B. Corrections, Retractions and “Expressions of Concern”
Editors assume initially that authors are reporting work based on honest observations. Nevertheless, two types of difficulty may arise.
First, errors may be noted in published articles that require the publication of a correction or erratum of part of the work. The corrections will appear on a numbered page, be listed in the contents page, include the complete original citation, and link to the original article and vice versa online. It is conceivable that an error could be so serious as to vitiate the entire body of the work, but this is unlikely and will be handled by editors and authors on an individual basis. Such an error should not be confused with inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new scientific information in the normal course of research. The latter requires no corrections or withdrawals.
The second type of difficulty is scientific fraud. If substantial doubts arise about the honesty or integrity of work, either submitted or published, it is the editor’s responsibility to ensure that the question is appropriately pursued, usually by the authors’ sponsoring institution. However, it is not ordinarily the task of editors to conduct a full investigation or to make a determination; that responsibility lies with the institution where the work was done or with the funding agency. The editor should be promptly informed of the final decision, and if a fraudulent paper has been published, the journal will print a retraction. If this method of investigation does not result in a satisfactory conclusion, the editor may choose to conduct own investigation. As an alternative to retraction, the editor may choose to publish an expression of concern about aspects of the conduct or integrity of the work. The retraction or expression of concern, so labeled, will appear on a numbered page in a prominent section of the print journal as well as in the online version, be listed in the contents page, and included in its heading the title of the original article. It will not simply be a letter to the editor. Ideally, the first author will be the same in the retraction as in the article, although under certain circumstances the editor may accept retractions by other responsible persons. The text of the retraction should explain why the article is being retracted and include a full original citation reference to it.
The validity of previous work by the author of a fraudulent paper cannot be assumed. Editors may ask the author’s institution to assure them of the validity of earlier work published in their journals or to retract it. If this is not done editors may choose to publish an announcement expressing concern that the validity of previously published work is uncertain.
The copyright status of articles in a given journal can vary: some content cannot be copyrighted (articles written by employees of the governments in the course of their work, for example).
III.D. Overlapping Publications
III.D.1. Duplicate Submission
The Journal will not consider manuscripts that are simultaneously being considered by other journals.
III.D.2. Redundant Publication
Redundant (or duplicate) publication is publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published in print or electronic media.
Readers of primary source periodicals, whether print or electronic, deserve to be able to trust that what they are reading is original unless there is a clear statement that the article is being republished by the choice of the author and editor. The bases of this position are international copyright laws, ethical conduct, and cost-effective use of resources. Duplicate publication of original research is particularly problematic, since it can result in inadvertent double counting or inappropriate weighting of the results of a single study, which distorts the available evidence.
This journal does not wish to receive papers on work that has already been reported in large part in a published article or is contained in another paper that has been submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere, in print or in electronic media. This policy does not preclude the journal considering a paper that has been rejected by another journal, or a complete report that follows publication of a preliminary report, such as an abstract or poster displayed at a professional meeting. Nor does it prevent the journals considering a paper that has been presented at a scientific meeting but not published in full or that is being considered for publication in a proceedings or similar format.
When submitting a paper, the author must always make a full statement to the editor about all submissions and previous reports that might be regarded as redundant or duplicate publication of the same or very similar work. The author must alert the editor if the manuscript includes subjects about which the authors have published a previous report or have submitted a related report to another publication. Any such report must be referred to and referenced in the new paper. Copies of such material should be included with the submitted paper.
III.D.3. Acceptable Secondary Publication
Certain types of articles, such as guidelines produced by governmental agencies and professional organizations, may need to reach the widest possible audience. In such instances, editors will choose to publish material that is also being published in other journals. Secondary publication for various other reasons, in the same or another language, especially in other countries and/or states, is justifiable, and can be beneficial, provided all of the following conditions are met.
1. The authors have received approval from the editors of both journals; the editor concerned with secondary publication must have a photocopy, reprint, or manuscript of the primary version.
2. The priority of the primary publication is respected by a publication interval of at least one week.
3. The paper for secondary publication is intended for a different group of readers; an abbreviated version could be sufficient.
4. The secondary version faithfully reflects the data and interpretations of the primary version.
5. The footnote on the title page of the secondary version informs readers, peers, and documenting agencies that the paper has been published in whole or in part and states the primary reference. A suitable footnote might read: “This article is based on a study first reported in the [title of journal, with full reference].”
Permission for such secondary publication should be free of charge.
6. The title of the secondary publication should indicate that it is a secondary publication (complete republication, abridged republication, complete translation, or abridged translation) of a primary publication. Of note, the National Library of Medicine does not consider translations to be “republications,” and does not cite or index translations when the original article was published in a journal that is indexed in MEDLINE.
III.D.4. Competing Manuscripts Based on the Same Study
Two kinds of competing submissions will be considered: submissions by coworkers who disagree on the analysis and interpretation of their study, and submissions by coworkers who disagree on what the facts are and which data should be reported.
Setting aside the unresolved question of ownership of the data, the following general observations may help editors and others dealing with these problems.
III. D.4.a. Differences in Analysis or Interpretation
If the dispute centers on the analysis or interpretation of data, the authors should submit a manuscript that clearly presents both versions. The difference of opinion should be explained in a cover letter. The normal process of peer and editorial review of the manuscript may help the authors to resolve their disagreement regarding analysis or interpretation.
If the dispute cannot be resolved and the study merits publication, both versions will be published. Options include publishing two papers on the same study, or a single paper with two analyses or interpretations. In such cases it would be appropriate for the editor to publish a statement outlining the disagreement and the journal’s involvement in attempts to resolve it.
III.D.4. b. Differences in Reported Methods or Results
If the dispute centers on differing opinions of what was actually done or observed during the study, the journal editor will refuse publication until the disagreement is resolved. Peer review cannot be expected to resolve such problems. If there are allegations of dishonesty or fraud, editors will inform the appropriate authorities; authors will be notified of editor’s intention to report a suspicion of research misconduct.
III.D.5. Competing Manuscripts Based on the Same Database
Editors may sometimes receive manuscripts from separate research groups that have analyzed the same data set, e.g., from a public database. The manuscripts may differ in their analytic methods, conclusions, or both. Each manuscript will be considered separately. Where interpretations of the same data are very similar, it is reasonable but not necessary for editors to give preference to the manuscript that was received earlier. However, editorial consideration of multiple submissions may be justified in this circumstance, and there may even be a good reason for publishing more than one manuscript because different analytical approaches may be complementary and equally valid.
As a mechanism for submitting comments, questions, or criticisms about published articles, as well as brief reports and commentary unrelated to previously published articles. This will likely, but not necessarily, take the form of a correspondence section or column. The authors of articles discussed in correspondence should be given an opportunity to respond, preferably in the same issue in which the original correspondence appears. Authors of correspondence will be asked to declare any competing or conflicting interests.
Published correspondence may be edited for length, grammatical correctness, and journal style.
Although editors have the prerogative to sift out correspondence material that is irrelevant, uninteresting, or lacking in cogency, they have a responsibility to allow a range of opinion to be expressed. The correspondence column will not be used merely to promote the journal’s, or the editors’, point of view. In all instances, editors will make an effort to screen out discourteous, inaccurate, or libelous statements.
In the interests of fairness and to keep correspondence within manageable proportions, journal may want to set time limits for responding to articles and correspondence, and for debate on a given topic. Journal has also set policy with regard to the archiving of unedited correspondence that appears on line. These policies should be published both in print and electronic versions of the journal.
III.F. Supplements, Theme Issues, and Special Series
Supplements are collections of papers that deal with related issues or topics, are published as a separate issue of the journal or as part of a regular issue, and are usually funded by sources other than the journal’s publisher. Supplements can serve useful purposes: education, exchange of research information, ease of access to focused content, and improved cooperation between academic and corporate entities. Because funding sources can bias the content of supplements through the choice of topics and viewpoints, this journal adopts the following principles. These same principles apply to theme issues or special series that have external funding and/or guest editors.
1. The journal editors take full responsibility for the policies, practices, and content of supplements, including complete control of the decision to publish all portions of the supplement. Editing by the funding organization will not be permitted.
2. The journal editors will retain the authority to send supplement manuscripts for external peer review and to reject manuscripts submitted for the supplement.
3. The journal editors will approve the appointment of any external editor of the supplement and take responsibility for the work of the external editor.
4. The sources of funding for the research, publication, and the products the funding source make that are considered in the supplement should be clearly stated and prominently located in the supplement, preferably on each page. Whenever possible, funding should come from more than one sponsor.
5. Secondary publication in supplements (republication of papers previously published elsewhere) will be clearly identified by the citation of the original paper. Supplements will avoid redundant or duplicate publication. Supplements will not republish research results, but the republication of guidelines or other material in the public interest might be appropriate.
IV. Manuscript Preparation and Submission
IV.A. Preparing a Manuscript for Submission
Editors and reviewers spend many hours reading manuscripts, and therefore appreciate receiving with manuscripts that are easy to read and edit. Much of the information in journals’ instructions to authors is designed to accomplish that goal in ways that meet each journal’s particular editorial needs. The guidance that follows provides a general background and rationale for preparing manuscripts for any journal.
IV.A.1.a. General Principles
The text of observational and experimental articles is usually (but not necessarily) divided into sections with the headings Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. This so-called “IMRAD” structure is not simply an arbitrary publication format, but rather a direct reflection of the process of scientific discovery. Long articles may need subheadings within some sections (especially the Results and Discussion sections) to clarify their content. Other types of articles, such as case reports, reviews, and editorials, are likely to need other formats.
Publication in electronic formats has created opportunities for adding details or whole sections in the electronic version only, layering information, cross-linking or extracting portions of articles, and the like. Authors need to work closely with editors in developing or using such new publication formats and should submit material for potential supplementary electronic formats for peer review.
Double spacing of all portions of the manuscript including the title page, abstract, text, acknowledgments, references, individual tables, and legends-and generous margins make it possible for editors and reviewers to edit the text line by line, and add comments and queries, directly on the paper copy. If manuscripts are submitted electronically, the files should be double spaced, because the manuscript may need to be printed out for reviewing and editing.
During the editorial process reviewers and editors frequently need to refer to specific portions of the manuscript, which is difficult unless the pages are numbered. Authors should therefore number all of the pages of the manuscript consecutively, beginning with the title page.
IV.A.1.b. Reporting Guidelines for Specific Study Designs
Research reports frequently omit important information. The general requirements listed in the next section relate to reporting essential elements for all study designs. Authors are encouraged in addition to consult reporting guidelines relevant to their specific research design. For reports of randomized controlled trials authors should refer to the CONSORT statement. This guideline provides a set of recommendations comprising a list of items to report and a patient flow diagram.
IV.A.2. Title Page
The title page should carry the following information:
1. The title of the article. Concise titles are easier to read than long, convoluted ones. Titles that are too short may, however, lack important information, such as study design (which is particularly important in identifying randomized controlled trials). Authors should include all information in the title that will make electronic retrieval of the article both sensitive and specific.
2. Authors’ names and institutional affiliations.
3. The name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be attributed.
4. Disclaimers, if any.
5. Corresponding authors. The name, mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address of the author responsible for correspondence about the manuscript (the “corresponding author;” this author may or may not be the “guarantor” for the integrity of the study as a whole, if someone is identified in that role. The corresponding author should indicate clearly whether his or her e-mail address is to be published.
6. The name and address of the author to whom requests for reprints should be addressed.
7. Source(s) of support in the form of grants, equipment, drugs, or all of these.
8. Word counts. A word count for the text only (excluding abstract, acknowledgments, figure legends, and references) allows editors and reviewers to assess whether the information contained in the paper warrants the amount of space devoted to it, and whether the submitted manuscript fits within the journal’s word limits. A separate word count for the Abstract is also useful for the same reason.
9. The number of figures and tables. It is difficult for editorial staff and reviewers to tell if the figures and tables that should have accompanied a manuscript were actually included unless the numbers of figures and tables that belong to the manuscript are noted on the title page.
IV.A.3. Conflict of Interest Notification Page
To prevent the information on potential conflict of interest for authors from being overlooked or misplaced, it is necessary for that information to be part of the manuscript. It should therefore also be included on a separate page or pages immediately following the title page.
IV.A.4. Abstract and Key Words
An abstract should follow the title page. The abstract should provide the context or background for the study and should state the study’s purposes, basic procedures (selection of study subjects or laboratory animals, observational and analytical methods), main findings (giving specific effect sizes and their statistical significance, if possible), and principal conclusions. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations. Because abstracts are the only substantive portion of the article indexed in electronic database and the only portion many readers read, authors need to be careful that abstracts reflect the content of the article accurately.
3 to 10 key words or short phrases that capture the main topics of the article. These 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 present terms may be used.
Provide a context or background for the study (i.e., the nature of the problem and its significance). State the specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation; the research objective is often more sharply focused when stated as a question. Both the main and secondary objectives should be made clear, and any pre-specified subgroup analyses should be described. Give only strictly pertinent references and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.
The Methods section should include only information that was available at the time the plan or protocol for the study was written; all information obtained during the conduct of the study belongs in the Results section.
IV.A.6.a. Selection and Description of Participants
Describe your selection of the observational or experimental participants (patients or laboratory animals, including controls) clearly, including eligibility and exclusion criteria and a description of the source population. Because the relevance of such variables as age and sex to the object of research is not always clear, authors should explain their use when they are included in a study report; for example, authors should explain why only subjects of certain ages were included or why women were excluded. The guiding principle should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way. When authors use variables such as race or ethnicity, they should define how they measured the variables and justify their relevance.
IV.A.6.b. Technical information
Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer’s name and address in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow other workers to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods see below; provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations. Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s), and route(s) of administration. Authors submitting review manuscripts should include a section describing the methods used for locating, selecting, extracting, and synthesizing data. These methods should also be summarized in the abstract.
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). References for the design of the study and statistical methods should be to standard works when possible (with pages stated). Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols. Specify the computer software used.
Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations, giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat in the text all the data in the tables or illustrations; emphasize or summarize only important observations. Extra or supplementary materials and technical detail can be placed in an appendix where it will be accessible but will not interrupt the flow of the text; alternatively, it can be published only in the electronic version of the journal.
When data are summarized in the Results section, give numeric results not only as derivatives (for example, percentages) but also as the absolute numbers from which the derivatives were calculated, and 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 non-technical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as “random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.”
Where scientifically appropriate, analyses of the data by variables such as age and sex should be included.
Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that follow from them. Do not repeat in detail data or other material given in the Introduction or the Results section. For experimental studies it is useful to begin the discussion by summarizing briefly the main findings, then explore possible mechanisms or explanations for these findings, compare and contrast the results with other relevant studies, state the limitations of the study, and explore the implications of the findings for future research and for clinical practice.
Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not adequately supported by the data. In particular, authors should avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless their manuscript includes the appropriate economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority and alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypotheses when warranted, but clearly label them as such.
IV.A.9.a. General Considerations Related to References
Although references to review articles can be an efficient way of guiding readers to a body of literature, review articles do not always reflect original work accurately. Readers should therefore be provided with direct references to original research sources whenever possible. On the other hand, extensive lists of references to original work on a topic can use excessive space on the printed page. Small numbers of references to key original papers will often serve as well as more exhaustive lists, particularly since references can now be added to the electronic version of published papers, and since electronic literature searching allows readers to retrieve published literature efficiently.
Avoid using abstracts as references. References to papers accepted but not yet published should be designated as “in press” or “forthcoming”; authors should obtain written permission to cite such papers as well as verification that they have been accepted for publication. Information from manuscripts submitted but not accepted should be cited in the text as “unpublished observations” with written permission from the source.
Avoid citing a “personal communication” unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. For scientific articles, authors should obtain written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication.
Some journals check the accuracy of all reference citations, but not all journals do so, and citation errors sometimes appear in the published version of articles. To minimize such errors, authors should therefore verify references against the original documents. Authors are responsible for checking that none of the references cite retracted articles except in the context of referring to the retraction. For articles published in journals indexed in MEDLINE, the ICMJE considers PubMed the authoritative source for information about retractions.
IV.A.9.b. Reference Style and Format
The Uniform Requirements style is based largely on an ANSI standard style adapted by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for its databases. For samples of reference citation formats, authors should consult National Library of Medicine web site.
References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text. Identify references in text, tables, and legends by Arabic numerals in parentheses. References cited only in tables or figure legends should be numbered in accordance with the sequence established by the first identification in the text of the particular table or figure. The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus.
This Journal requires that the references from the Ayurvedic classics should be cited within parentheses in the text, i.e. ( Cha. Soo. 25/40).
Tables capture information concisely, and display it efficiently; they also provide information at any desired level of detail and precision. Including data in tables rather than text frequently makes it possible to reduce the length of the text.
Type or print each table with double spacing on a separate sheet of paper. Number tables consecutively in the order of their first citation in the text and supply a brief title for each. Do not use internal horizontal or vertical lines. Give each column a short or abbreviated heading. Authors should place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading. Explain in footnotes all nonstandard abbreviations. For footnotes use the following symbols, in sequence:
Identify statistical measures of variations, such as standard deviation and standard error of the mean.
Be sure that each table is cited in the text.
If you use data from another published or unpublished source, obtain permission and acknowledge them fully.
Additional tables containing backup data too extensive to publish in print may be appropriate for publication in the electronic version of the journal. In that event an appropriate statement will be added to the text. Submit such tables for consideration with the paper so that they will be available to the peer reviewers.
IV.A.11. Illustrations (Figures)
Figures should be either professionally drawn and photographed, or submitted as photographic quality digital prints. In addition to requiring a version of the figures suitable for printing, this Journal asks authors for electronic files of figures in a format (e.g., JPEG or GIF) that will produce high quality images in the web version of the journal; authors should review the images of such files on a computer screen before submitting them, to be sure they meet their own quality standard.
For x-ray films, scans, and other diagnostic images, as well as pictures of pathology specimens or photomicrographs, send sharp, glossy, black-and-white or color photographic prints, usually 127 x 173 mm (5 x 7 inches). Letters, numbers, and symbols on Figures should be clear and even throughout, and of sufficient size that when reduced for publication each item will still be legible. Figures should be made as self-explanatory as possible. Titles and detailed explanations belong in the legends, however, not on the illustrations themselves.
Photomicrographs should have internal scale markers. Symbols, arrows, or letters used in photomicrographs should contrast with the background.
If photographs of people are used, either the subjects must not be identifiable or their pictures must be accompanied by written permission to use the photograph. Whenever possible permission for publication should be obtained.
Figures should be numbered consecutively according to the order in which they have been first cited in the text. If a figure has been published, acknowledge the original source and submit written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce the material. Permission is required irrespective of authorship or publisher except for documents in the public domain.
IV.A.12. Legends for Illustrations (Figures)
Type or print out legends for illustrations using double spacing, starting on a separate page, with Arabic numerals corresponding to the illustrations. When symbols, arrows, numbers, or letters are used to identify parts of the illustrations, identify and explain each one clearly in the legend. Explain the internal scale and identify the method of staining in photomicrographs.
IV.A.13. Units of Measurement
Use only standard Units of Measurements. If some new measurements or scoring patterns are used they should be explained in detail in the text.
IV.A.14. Abbreviations and Symbols
Use only standard abbreviations; the use of non-standard abbreviations can be extremely confusing to readers. Avoid abbreviations in the title. The full term for which an abbreviation stands should precede its first use in the text unless it is a standard unit of measurement.
IV.B Sending the Manuscript to the Journal
This Journal accepts electronic submission of manuscripts, whether on disk or attachments to electronic mail. Electronic submission saves time as well as postage costs, and allows the manuscript to be handled in electronic form throughout the editorial process (for example, when it is sent out for review). When submitting a manuscript electronically, authors should consult with the instructions for authors of the journal they have chosen for their manuscript.
If a paper version of the manuscript is submitted, send the required number of 6 copies of the manuscript and figures; they are all needed for peer review and editing, and editorial office staff cannot be expected to make the required copies.
Manuscripts must be accompanied by a cover letter, which should include the following information.
l A full statement to the editor about all submissions and previous reports that might be regarded as redundant publication of the same or very similar work. Any such work should be referred to specifically, and referenced in the new paper. Copies of such material should be included with the submitted paper, to help the editor decide how to handle the matter.
l A statement of financial or other relationships that might lead to a conflict of interest, if that information is not included in the manuscript itself or in an authors’ form
l A statement that the manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, that the requirements for authorship as stated earlier in this document have been met, and that each author believes that the manuscript represents honest work, if that information is not provided in another form; and
l The name, address, and telephone number of the corresponding author, who is responsible for communicating with the other authors about revisions and final approval of the proofs, if that information is not included on the manuscript itself.
The letter should give any additional information that may be helpful to the editor, such as the type or format of article in the particular journal that the manuscript represents. If the manuscript has been submitted previously to another journal, it is helpful to include the previous editor’s and reviewers’ comments with the submitted manuscript, along with the authors’ responses to those comments. Editors encourage authors to submit these previous communications and doing so may expedite the review process.
Copies of any permission to reproduce published material, to use illustrations or report information about identifiable people, or to name people for their contributions must accompany the manuscript.
V. Use of Standardized Ayurveda terminologies and National Ayurveda Morbidity Codes in Research Publications
As you are aware, a huge corpus of medical terminology is available in the classical literature of Ayurveda. In an era where the popularity of Ayurveda is reaching far and wide, time has come to develop effective communication about Ayurveda among all stakeholders to improve productive cooperation among individuals and nations having common interests with respect to Ayurveda. Scientific writing plays a major role in communication among stakeholders and has an important role to play in this regard. However, due to ambiguities in the usage of terminologies, lack of standardization of terminologies and absence of standard guidelines, tendency to translate and use terminologies as per individual wish has become a common parlance due to which the credibility of Ayurveda at large in the international scenario is being affected. If we compare the translations of the same term used in different journals, differences in the translation and meaning are found. This is more important in case of diagnostic terms because the same disease name in Ayurveda is translated in different ways by different authors. Thus in order to bring uniformity in the use of Scientific terminology and also in translations of scientific terminology of Ayurveda, the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, on the Directives of the Ministry of AYUSH has developed and published a document of Standard Ayurveda Terminologies in two volumes as an initial step in this regard.
2. Standardized Ayurveda Terminologies (SAT) along with National Ayurveda Morbidity Codes (NAMC) has been made available in public domain through a portal named “National AYUSH Morbidity and Standardized Terminologies Portal (NAMSTP)” which is hosted at the following URL: http://namstp.ayush.gov.in.
3. The portal was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on the occasion of 2nd Ayurveda Day (17th October 2017) at All India Institute of Ayurveda, New Delhi. The portal provides Standardized Terminologies & Morbidity Codes for Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems of medicine along with W.H.O ICD-10/11 codes meant for dual coding and morbidity reporting for Yoga, Naturopathy and Homoeopathy Systems. These are meant for unambiguous reporting, electronic data submission through individual institutions and gradually moving towards adopting Electronic Health Records (E.H.R.).
4. For effective implementation of the same, there is need for co-ordination and understanding among the various stakeholders. The document has been prepared after extensive deliberations and consultations. Each term has been a specific alpha numeric code and the names of diseases hare been given a separate title National Ayurveda Morbidity Codes.
5. Ministry of AYUSH has also initiated efforts for centralized collection of morbidity statistics pertaining to various systems of medicine under the Ministry viz. Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy through the NAMSTP.
6. In this connection, please note that the usage of Morbidity codes and the portal has the potential to revolutionize morbidity statistics data collection and health care delivery reporting potential pertaining to AYUSH systems and bring to light the contribution of AYUSH systems to the health care delivery system of our country on real time basis and the benefits of sustaining such activity is expected to have positive bearing on future policy making.
7. Keeping in view of the above. it is requested to kindly go through the contents of the portal (http://namstp.ayush.gov.in) and explore the possibility of making the usage of Standardized Ayurveda Terminologies (for translation of scientific terms) and National Ayurveda Morbidity Codes (for translation of diagnostic terms as well as mentioning the Disease code against the names of the morbidity conditions mentioned in the paper) mandatory for publication of research papers.
A. References Cited in this Document
1. Davidoff F for the CSE Task Force on Authorship. Who’s the Author? Problems with Biomedical Authorship, and Some Possible Solutions. Science Editor. July-August 2000: Volume 23 – Number 4: 111-119.
2. Yank V, Rennie D. Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in The Lancet. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Apr 20;130(8):661-70.
3. Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. Authorship for research groups. JAMA. 2002;288:3166-68.
4. Peer Review in Health Sciences. F Godlee, T Jefferson. London: BMJ Books, 1999.
5. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2000 Dec 20;284(23):3043-5.
6. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999 Mar 24-31;281(12):1110-1.
7. Patrias K. National Library of Medicine recommended formats for bibliographic citation. Bethesda (MD): The Library; 1991.
B. Other Sources of Information Related to Biomedical Journals
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) www.WAME.org <http://www.WAME.org>
Council of Science Editors (CSE) www.councilscienceeditors.org <http://www.councilscienceeditors.org>
European Association of Science Editors (EASE) www.ease.org.uk <http://www.ease.org.uk>
Cochrane Collaboration www.cochrane.org <http://www.cochrane.org>
The Mulford Library, Medical College of Ohio www.mco.edu/lib/instr/libinsta.html <http://www.mco.edu/lib/instr/libinsta.html>
“This is a reprint (with minor alterations according to the need of this Journal ) of the ICMJE Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. The editors of this Journals prepared this altered version. The ICMJE has neither endorsed nor approved the contents of this reprint. The ICMJE periodically updates the Uniform Requirements, so this reprint prepared on 1.1.2007 may not accurately represent the current official version at www.ICMJE.org <http://www.ICMJE.org>. The official version of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals is located at www.ICMJE.org <http://www.ICMJE.org>.”