Instructions for Authors

Updated: 20 April 2026

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

i. The Order of Naming the Authors
Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of the manuscript as mentioned in the Authorship Policy. The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and writing the manuscript. Once submitted the order cannot be changed without written consent of all the contributors. 

ii. Originality
The journal accepts only original manuscripts that have not been previously published and are not currently under review or consideration elsewhere. Submissions must represent the authors’ own scholarly work, with all sources properly cited. Any form of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or redundant submission is considered a serious breach of publication ethics and may result in rejection or retraction.

iii. Word Count
The following word count limits and minimums apply to all submission types. The word count excludes references, tables, figures, and supplementary material.

Manuscript Type	Minimum	Maximum
Original Research	3,000 words	6,000 words
Systematic Review	3,000 words	6,000 words
Scoping Review	3,000 words	6,000 words
Narrative Review	2,500 words	6,000 words
Case Report	1,500 words	3,000 words
Opinion Article	800 words	1,500 words
Letter to the Editor	400 words	800 words

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum word count will be returned to the author without proceeding to editorial review. Manuscripts exceeding the maximum word count will similarly be returned unless the excess is justified in the cover letter and approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

iv. Language Policy
The Journal recognises the global diversity of its contributors and readership. In fostering inclusivity and accessibility, authors may use either American English or British English throughout your manuscript. The chosen form of English (American or British) should be applied consistently within the manuscript. Authors should avoid mixing varieties in spelling, grammar, or terminology within the same article. The journal recommends reading the article Ten Simple (Empirical) Rules for Writing Science to improve your manuscript. Abbreviations (with the exception of those clearly well established in the field) should be explained when they are first used both in the abstract and in the main text.

v. Use of Footnotes and Endnotes
To maintain clarity and coherence in scholarly writing, authors should avoid the use of footnotes and endnotes wherever possible. Essential explanatory content should be incorporated into the narrative structure of the manuscript rather than separated from the main discussion. 

vi. Use of Abbreviations
To enhance clarity and readability, authors should use abbreviations judiciously and consistently throughout the manuscript. Terms that are not universally recognized within the discipline must be spelled out in full upon first use in both the abstract and the main text, followed by the appropriate abbreviation in parentheses. Subsequent references may use the abbreviation alone.

vii. Citations Style
Effective 1 June 2026, the journal has transitioned to the Vancouver citation style (also known as the ICMJE Recommendations / NLM citation style) as the required citation format for all new submissions. Vancouver citation style is the standard format for biomedical and health sciences journals worldwide, improving readability and consistency with PubMed/MEDLINE indexing requirements.

Manuscripts submitted on or after 1 June 2026 must use Vancouver citation style. Manuscripts submitted before 1 June 2026 and currently under review may retain APA 7th edition formatting and will be published in their original citation style. Articles published in Volumes 1 (2023) to Volume 4 Issue 1 (2025) retain their original APA 7th edition citation style. This reflects the journal's citation style at the time of their submission and does not affect their scholarly validity.

Cite sources using Arabic numerals in square brackets and in order of appearance. Use the same number for repeated citations of the same source. When citing multiple sources together, list them as a range if consecutive, or individually if non-consecutive, separated by commas.

Examples:

Single	:	... As previously reported [1], the incidence …
Consecutive range	:	... Several studies have confirmed this finding [2-5] …
Non-consecutive	:	... This has been widely observed [1,3,7] …
Mixed	:	... Evidence supports this approach [1-3,7] ….

viii. Statistics
Whenever possible quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Authors should report losses to observation (such as, dropouts from a clinical trial). When data are summarised in the Results section, specify the statistical methods used to analyse them. Avoid non-technical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as 'random' (which implies a randomising device), 'normal', 'significant', 'correlations', and 'sample'. Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols. Specify the computer software used. Use upper italics (P=0.048). For all P values include the exact value and not less than 0.05 or 0.001. Mean differences in continuous variables, proportions in categorical variables and relative risks including odds ratios and hazard ratios should be accompanied by their confidence intervals.

ix. References
Peer-reviewed references are strongly preferred. Prioritise articles from published in credible and/or reputable journals that comes with publication rigour. Books or book chapters (only when they provide foundational knowledge). Reputable guidelines from professional societies (e.g., WHO, DSM, NICE, IDEA, ACC/AHA) are acceptable. Peer-reviewed conference proceedings are acceptable. Prioritise recent literature (preferably published within the last 5–10 years)

Avoid sources that are non-peer-reviewed such as websites, blogs, or commercial materials. Avoid predatory or low-quality journals, unpublished data such as personal communications, or abstracts without full text, and wikipedia or other crowd-sourced platforms.

Every reference must include a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or a stable URL link, preferably a PubMed or publisher link if DOI is unavailable. DOIs provide permanent, reliable access to the source. Reviewers and editors expect clickable and verifiable references.

Where a DOI has not been officially assigned by the publisher, it should be omitted entirely from the reference. Authors should not attempt to generate, construct, or substitute a DOI from third-party sources. An exception is made for older or seminal works that predate the widespread adoption of the DOI system but are of significant theoretical or foundational importance to the domain. Verify every DOI and URL link works before submission.

x. Figures and tables
The locations of tables and figures should be indicated in the body of the text. Figures should be numbered using Arabic numerals. Photographs submitted electronically should have a resolution of 300 dpi and should be saved as .tif or .jpg files.

Authors are responsible for securing permission for any copyrighted third-party material (figures, tables, images, etc.) included in their article. Third-party material may not automatically fall under the CC BY 4.0 license. If a figure (photograph) has been previously published, the source should be given, and written permission to use it should be obtained from the copyright holder depending on the licences accorded with the figure.

xi. Citation of Figures and Tables
All tables and figures must be mentioned in the running text in the order of their appearance (e.g., Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, Figure 2). Every table and figure must be referred to and discussed in the text. Tables and figures that are not mentioned and discussed in the manuscript will be removed during editorial processing.

All tables and figures must be accompanied by a descriptive caption that is sufficiently informative for the table or figure to be understood independently of the main text. Table captions are placed above the table, while figure captions are placed below the figure. Abbreviations used within tables or figures must be defined at the in a footnote immediately below the table or figure, even if they have been previously defined in the text.

For tables and figures presenting the authors' own original data, no in-table or in-figure citation is required beyond the standard in-text reference at the point of discussion. Where a table or figure reproduces, adapts, or synthesises information from a previously published source or sources, authors are required to cite the relevant references both in the text at the point where the table or figure is introduced and within the table or figure itself, for transparency and traceability.

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, studies included in summary tables such as the characteristics of included studies or risk-of-bias tables should be identified by author name(s) and year of publication within the table rather than by reference number, to preserve the sequential numbering requirements of Vancouver citation style. References should be cited in the running text only at the point where individual studies are specifically discussed or compared. For narrative reviews, where a table synthesises information from multiple sources, authors are encouraged to cite the full reference range in the text when the table is introduced, and include row-specific citations within the table where different rows draw from distinct reference sources.

For tables synthesising information from multiple sources in narrative reviews, where all rows draw from the same pool of references, the full reference range may be cited in the text and in the table caption. Where different rows draw from distinct reference sources, row-specific citations should be included in a dedicated reference column within the table. For figures synthesising or adapting information from multiple sources, the relevant references should be cited in the text at the point where the figure is introduced and listed in the figure caption. Where a table or figure is reproduced or adapted from a single previously published source, the original source must be cited in the table or figure caption and written copyright permission obtained from the original publisher prior to submission.

 

2. TITLE PAGE

The Journal uses double-blind peer review. The Title Page facilitates anonymous peer review. It should include the full title of the manuscript, the names of all authors in the order they are to appear in the publication, the institutional affiliation of each author and their ORCID iD. The Journal will  assign every article a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) obtained from Crossref. The ORCID account will be updated automatically once the article is published with our Journal.

Authors are also required to provide in the Title Page, declarations and disclosures  which are fundamental ethical obligations that underpin the credibility and integrity of published research in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Journal aligns its publication ethics policies with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 

To assist international indexing and citation attribution, all authors are requested to write their family name in FULL CAPITALS, regardless of nationality or name structure. This applies to names of two syllables (e.g., John SMITH, Shaoying ZHANG, Kenji TANAKA) and three or more syllables (e.g., Ming Hui LEE, Woon Sze TANG). Hyphens between given name syllables should be avoided. This convention applies to the Title Page, manuscript byline, and the journal portal' author registration.

Download, complete and submit: Title Page

 

3. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATION

Recommend qualified subject-matter experts or researchers who possess the appropriate expertise to evaluate the scholarly merit, methodological rigor, and relevance of a submitted manuscript help to expedite the peer-review process. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the editorial team, ensuring that all reviews are conducted in accordance with established ethical standards and principles of impartiality.

Download, complete and submit: Reviewer Recommendation Form

 

4. MANUSCRIPT TYPES

The manuscript MUST be fully anonymised. Do not include any author identification, details or names in the manuscript file as it will be sent to the peer reviewers. The Manuscript Template standardises formatting, structure, and presentation for all submissions, facilitating fair and efficient editorial processing and peer review. It reduces the likelihood of editorial rejection and delays.

Download and comply: Manuscript Template

All submissions must demonstrate at least one of the following evidential bases:
● original empirical data
● critical synthesis of the existing scientific literature
● convergent scientific inference from established findings across disciplines, where the inferential logic is made explicit and conclusions are clearly distinguished from settled empirical claims
● formal logical or mathematical derivation grounded in established axioms
● structured expert consensus with transparent methodology
● rigorously documented practice-based evidence

i. Original Research

Original research articles report empirical investigations (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods)  that generate new knowledge relevant to educational therapy, allied health, and related fields. Eligible study designs include randomised controlled trials, observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional), diagnostic accuracy studies, quality improvement studies, clinical practice guideline development, qualitative studies, and mixed-methods studies. Qualitative and mixed-methods designs are equally valued and must comply with the relevant reporting standards below.

Original Research articles should not exceed 6 authors. Submissions with more than 6 authors must include written justification in the cover letter confirming that all additional authors meet ICMJE criteria. This limit does not apply to large collaborative or multicentre studies (state this in your cover letter).

Before writing, identify the applicable reporting guideline. Complete the relevant checklist alongside your manuscript, clearly indicating the page or section where each item is reported and submit it as a supplementary file. Checklists are verified during editorial processing and peer review.

CONSORT 2025 for randomised controlled trials
STROBE for observational studies
SPIRIT 2025 for trial protocols
STARD 2015 for diagnostic accuracy studies (including imaging, laboratory, biomarker, diagnostic tests)
SQUIRE 2.0 for quality improvement and patient safety projects
AGREE for Clinical Practice Guidelines / Consensus Statements
COREQ for Qualitative Research (interviews/focus groups)
SRQR for Qualitative Research (broader designs)

Abstract (Structured)

Not more than 350 words. Keywords should not be more than 6. Required headings vary by study type as follows:

Study Type	Required Abstract Headings
All original research	Background · Objectives · Methods · Results · Conclusion
Randomised controlled trials	Background · Objectives · Methods · Results · Conclusion · Registration
Other clinical trials	Background · Objectives · Methods · Results · Conclusion · Registration

The Registration heading is mandatory for all randomised controlled trials and other prospectively registered clinical studies. Under this heading, authors must state:

● The name of the trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ANZCTR)
● The unique trial registration number
● The date of registration

Example:

Registration: This trial was prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration No. NCT00000000) on 15 January 2024.

Manuscripts reporting a randomised controlled trial that do not include the Registration heading and the required information in the structured abstract will be returned to the author without proceeding to peer review.

Introduction
Must include: (1) a critical review of the relevant background literature; (2) a clear statement of the knowledge gap or problem being addressed; (3) the theoretical or conceptual framework where applicable; (4) explicit research question(s) or hypothesis, distinguishing primary from secondary objectives for quantitative studies; and (5) a brief justification for the chosen study design.

Methods (or Materials and Methods)
In the Methods section, authors must provide sufficient detail to allow independent replication. Required sub-sections: Study Design (name and define clearly; for RCTs, describe randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding) · Setting and Participants (eligibility criteria, source population, recruitment) · Sample Size (power calculation for quantitative studies; sampling rationale for qualitative) · Intervention or Exposure (sufficient detail for replication) · Outcome Measures (primary and secondary; validated instruments cited) · Data Collection (procedures, quality assurance, missing data handling) · Statistical or Analytical Methods (for quantitative: tests, software, exact p-values and confidence intervals; for qualitative: analytical method, trustworthiness procedures) · Ethical Approval (committee name, approval number, date; informed consent procedure).

Include the following declaration in the manuscript, naming the applicable guideline: "This study is reported in accordance with the [Guideline Name] statement."

Results
Present your results in a 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; emphasise or summarise 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. 

When data are summarised 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. Where scientifically appropriate, analyses of the data by variables such as age and sex should be included.

Discussion
Must address: (1) summary of key findings; (2) interpretation in light of existing evidence, including explanation of consistencies and discrepancies; (3) implications for practice, policy, and future research. 

Do not repeat in detail data or other material given in the Introduction or the Results section. In particular, contributors should avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless their manuscript includes economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority and alluding to work that has not been completed. New hypotheses may be stated if needed, however they should be clearly labeled as such. 

Limitations (Standalone Section)
Address limitations relating to: study design; participant selection and sample; measurement and data quality; analytical approach; and generalisability.

Conclusion
Directy addresses the research question(s) supported by the data. It should not introduce new material or make claims beyond what the study supports.

 

ii. Systematic Review

A systematic review answers a specific, focused question using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesise all relevant evidence, with or without a meta-analysis. It minimises bias through predefined eligibility criteria, comprehensive searching, and formal quality appraisal of included studies.

All systematic reviews must be reported using PRISMA 2020. If  Use the PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram to illustrate the study selection process. If a meta-analysis is not performed, authors must also follow the SWiM reporting guideline for the synthesis and presentation of findings. Submit the completed checklists as a supplementary file during manuscript submission, indicating the page or section number where each item is reported. The checklist will be verified during editorial and peer review.

Authors must also carried out the followings (with or without meta-analysis):

● PROSPERO registration:
Register the protocol in PROSPERO prospectively before data extraction begins. Report the registry name and registration number in the Abstract and Methods.

● PICO review question:
Frame the review question using PICO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) or equivalent. State the full PICO question explicitly at the end of the Introduction and organise the eligibility criteria by PICO components in the Methods.

● Risk-of-bias assessment: Use a validated tool such as Cochrane RoB 2.0 (randomised trials), ROBINS-I (non-randomised studies), or QUADAS-2 (diagnostic accuracy studies only) appropriate to the included study designs. Describe the tool and assessment process in Methods. Present findings as a summary figure or table in Results.

● Certainty of evidence:
Rate the certainty of evidence for each primary outcome using the GRADE framework (High / Moderate / Low / Very Low). Report ratings in the Results section. Calibrate all conclusions in the Discussion explicitly to the certainty rating (for example: "Based on moderate-certainty evidence…") Authors are encouraged to use GRADEpro GDT to generate a Summary of Findings table.

● Narrative synthesis:
If a narrative synthesis is conducted rather than a meta-analysis, describe the synthesis approach, how studies were grouped, and how findings were summarised in the Methods. Present findings in the Results.

Include a clear statement in the manuscript: “This systematic review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement.”

Title 
Identify the article type. Reflect the PICO components in the title where possible. Example: "Effectiveness of [Intervention] on [Outcome] in [Population]: A Systematic Review.

Abstract (Structured)
Not more than 350 words. Follow the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts format. Required headings: Background · Objectives · Eligibility Criteria · Information Sources · Risk of Bias · Synthesis Methods · Results · Limitations · Conclusions and Implications · Registration · Funding.

Introduction
(1) Rationale: the clinical/educational problem and why a systematic review is needed now. (2) Objectives: state the explicit PICO review question at the end of the Introduction. Example: "This review aimed to determine whether [I] compared to [C] improves [O] in [P]."

Methods
Must be fully reproducible. Follow PRISMA 2020 items 5–16. Key sub-sections: Eligibility Criteria (organised by PICO) · Information Sources (all databases, grey literature, date of last search) · Search Strategy (full strategy for ≥1 database as supplementary file) · Study Selection · Data Collection · Risk-of-Bias Assessment (tool, process, number of reviewers) · Synthesis Methods (meta-analysis or narrative synthesis approach; GRADE approach for certainty ratings).

Results
Present in order: (1) Study Selection: PRISMA 2020 flow diagram with reasons for exclusion. (2) Study Characteristics table. (3) Risk-of-Bias summary figure or table. (4) Individual Study Results. (5) Synthesis Results: pooled estimates and heterogeneity statistics where applicable; GRADE certainty rating for each primary outcome.

Discussion
(1) Summary of principal findings relative to the PICO objectives. (2) Comparison with existing reviews and primary studies. (3) Interpretation of results calibrated to the GRADE certainty ratings, e.g., "Based on moderate-certainty evidence…" (4) Implications for practice, policy, and future research. (5) Limitations of the review process.

Conclusion
Concise and calibrated to the certainty of the evidence. Avoid definitive recommendations that exceed what the evidence supports. Specify what future research is needed where evidence is insufficient or of low certainty.

 

iii. Scoping Review

A scoping review systematically maps the existing literature on a topic or research area to identify key concepts, types of evidence available, and knowledge gaps. Unlike a systematic review, a scoping review does not answer a focused clinical question or assess the quality of individual studies. It is appropriate when the evidence base is heterogeneous or emerging, when a preliminary map is needed before a systematic review is feasible, or when the purpose is to clarify concepts across disciplines.

Scoping reviews must be conducted systematically and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Download and complete the checklist and submit it as a supplementary file. Include this declaration: "This scoping review is reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR statement."

Title
Explicitly identify the article as a scoping review. Example: A Scoping Review of [Topic/Concept] in [Population/Context].

Abstract (Structured)
Not more than 350 words. Follow PRISMA-ScR for Abstracts guidance. Headings: Background · Objectives · Eligibility Criteria · Sources of Evidence · Charting Methods · Results · Conclusions.

Introduction
State the rationale for a scoping review on this topic, the nature of the evidence base, the importance of mapping the literature, and the specific objectives framed using PCC or equivalent. Define key concepts and the scope of the review.

Methods
Describe: (1) methodological framework followed; (2) PCC (Population, Concept, Context) or equivalent framework; (3) all databases, date ranges, search terms, and filters; (4) grey literature sources; (5) inclusion/exclusion criteria and rationale; (6) screening process; (7) data charting form and variables extracted; (8) any stakeholder consultation exercise.

Results
Present the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram. Provide a descriptive and, where appropriate, tabular or graphical summary of the charted data. Do not assess quality or risk of bias of individual studies.

Discussion
Implications of the mapped evidence, gaps identified, and relevance to practice, policy, or future research. May recommend areas where a full systematic review is warranted.

Limitations
Acknowledge limitations of the scoping methodology: gaps in the search, subjectivity in charting, and the exploratory.

Conclusion
Summarise the evidence mapped and its implications. Avoid causal conclusions that exceed what a scoping review can support.

 

iv. Narrative Review

A narrative review provides a broad, critical synthesis and interpretation of the existing literature on a defined topic or question. Unlike systematic reviews, narrative reviews are not required to follow an exhaustive predefined search methodology, but they must demonstrate a transparent, reasoned, and critically analytical approach. Narrative reviews that are purely descriptive, lack analytical depth, or show evidence of selective citation will not be accepted.

Narrative reviews must be conducted systematically and reported in accordance with SANRA. Download and complete the checklist and submit it as a supplementary file.

Title
Identify the manuscript as a narrative review and indicate the topic or scope. Example: [Topic]: A Narrative Review of [Aspect or Scope].

Abstract (Unstructured)
Not more than 250 words, that summarises the background, main objectives, key findings or themes, and conclusions. Avoid references in the abstract.

Introduction
Provide (1) Background and context. (2) Definition of key terms and boundaries of the review. (3) Specific aims or review question(s). (4) Justification for why a narrative review, rather than a systematic or scoping review, is the appropriate approach.

Methods
Describe: Search Strategy (databases, date range, key terms) · Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (types of sources, language, time period, rationale) · Study Selection Process · Synthesis Approach (thematic, conceptual, chronological, or framework-based. Explain how themes or categories were identified).

Main Body (Results / Synthesis)
Organised around themes, concepts, or an argument structure, not sequential study summaries. Integrate evidence from multiple sources within each section. Identify agreements and disagreements, evaluate quality and relevance of key studies, discuss bases for conflicting findings, and highlight gaps.

Discussion
(1) Integrate synthesis into a coherent overall interpretation. (2) Compare conclusions with related reviews. (3) Identify and discuss gaps. (4) Implications for practice, policy, or education. (5) Limitations of the narrative approach.

Limitations (Standalone Section)
Acknowledge: selection bias potential; subjectivity in synthesis and how it was managed; search constraints; any other factors limiting validity or comprehensiveness.

Conclusion
Directly addresses the review question(s). Integrates key findings into a clear, evidence-grounded position. Identifies implications for practice, policy, or research and specifies research gaps where possible.

 

v. Case Report

Case reports describe the clinical presentation, assessment, management, and outcome of an individual patient, client, or learner whose features are unusual, rare, clinically instructive, or educationally significant. In the journal's context, case reports are particularly valued when they document educational therapy or allied health interventions, illustrate novel or adapted approaches, highlight diagnostic challenges, or provide generalisable practice lessons.

Submit a completed CARE Checklist and submit as a supplementary file during manuscript submission, indicating the page or section where each item is reported. Include this declaration: "This case report is reported in accordance with the CARE 2013 guidelines."

Abstract (Unstructured)
Not more than 250 words, summarising (1) why this case is important and what it adds; (2) brief case presentation; (3) key interventions; (4) outcomes and key lessons learned.

Introduction
Brief, focused background. Explains why the case is novel or instructive. States educational or clinical value for readers.

Case Presentation
Present the case in chronological order with clear subheadings:

- Subject information (demographics, relevant history – fully de-identified)
- Clinical findings and timeline
- Diagnostic assessment (including differential diagnosis)
- Therapeutic intervention and patient response
- Follow-up and outcomes
- Patient perspective (optional but encouraged)

Discussion
Compare with relevant published literature. Highlight educational value and what the case adds to knowledge. Discuss diagnostic or therapeutic challenges and how they were resolved. Discuss limitations and what generalisable conclusions can and cannot be drawn.

Conclusion
State key learning points concisely. Identify implications for clinical or educational practice. Specify what further research or observation is needed.

 

vi. Opinion Article

Opinion articles present the author’s expert viewpoint, analysis, or argument on a timely, important, or controversial topic in the field. They aim to stimulate discussion, offer new insights, or highlight policy, ethical, or future research implications. An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or practical insights or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best. The article should be evidence-informed but may include reasoned interpretation and forward-looking ideas. 

Title
Direct and indicative of the specific position or argument being advanced. May be a statement, question, or proposition.

Abstract (Unstructured)
Not more than 150 words, must convey: (1) the central argument or position; (2) the principal supporting evidence or reasoning; (3) the main implication(s) for practice, policy, or research.

Introduction
State the issue and its significance. Establish why a position needs to be taken or defended at this time. State the central argument explicitly and clearly at the end of the Introduction.

Main Body
Organised around the key pillars of the argument, using subheadings where appropriate. Each section should: advance one component of the argument with supporting evidence; anticipate and address significant counter-arguments at the appropriate point — not deferred to a single paragraph at the end; and maintain a tone that is assertive but measured and respectful of the professional community.

Avoid rhetorical devices that substitute for evidence. Where the position rests on professional experience or inference, state this explicitly.

Conclusion
Summarise the key argument and state clearly what the author's position implies for: (1) clinical or educational practice; (2) policy or professional standards; and/or (3) future research priorities. Do not introduce new evidence or arguments here.

 

vii. Letters to Editor

A short, focused response (usually to a recently published article in the same journal). It provides critical comments, corrections, additional data, questions, or minor new insights. It functions as a form of post-publication peer review and is typically very concise, polite, evidence-based, and time-sensitive. Letters must refer to a specific article published in this journal (usually within the last 3 to 6 months). 

Include a clear statement at the beginning referencing the original article (e.g., “We read with interest the article by [Author et al.] published in [Journal] on [date] entitled ‘[Title]’.”). Limit to one main point or a maximum of 2 to 3 closely related points. 

Opening Statement
First sentence identifies the original article. Opening paragraph states the main point and its importance.

Main Point(s)
Develop the argument concisely with supporting references. For statistical or methodological critiques, provide specific figures, calculations, or citations. All references must be from peer-reviewed sources with verifiable DOIs.

Conclusion / Question
Concise conclusion, a specific question to the original authors, or a recommendation for practice or future research.

 

5. USE OF AI TOOLS

AI Tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, nor cited as such, as authorship requires human accountability for the work's accuracy, originality, ethical compliance, and final approval. Authors should disclose the use of AI Tools for manuscript preparation in a separate AI declaration statement in their manuscript upon submission and a statement will appear in the published work.

Authors should document and disclosure their use of AI Tools including the name and purpose of such AI Tools used, and the extent of their oversight as mentioned in the Artificial Intelligence Policy.


6. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS & POLICIES

Rights and Informed Consent
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (concerning ethical principles for the medical community and forbidding releasing the name of the patient, initials or the hospital evidence number) and with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national).

Information regarding the ethical committee approval for conducting the research and the informed consent of patients for participating in the studies should be included in the methods section of articles describing studies in which the diagnostic intervention or the treatment included non-routine procedures. Authors presenting case studies are obligated not to disclose patients’ personal data. Regarding photographs, in case of any doubt that the image inadequately protects the patient’s anonymity, his consent is required for publication.

Clinical Trial Registration
The Journal publishes in accordance with ICMJE policies and recommendations. The ICMJE requires and recommends that all require registration of clinical trials in a public trials registry at or before the time of first patient enrollment as a condition of consideration for article publication. The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. Health-related interventions are those used to modify a biomedical or health-related outcome; examples include drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioural treatments, educational programs, dietary interventions, quality improvement interventions, and process-of-care changes. Health outcomes are any biomedical or health-related measures obtained in patients or participants, including pharmacokinetic measures and adverse events.

The ICMJE accepts publicly accessible registration in any registry that is a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) that includes the minimum acceptable 24-item trial registration data set or in ClinicalTrials.gov, which is a data provider to the WHO ICTRP. In accordance with the ICMJE clinical trial registration policy recommendations, authors are required to provide all necessary information regarding the registered study when submitting the article for publication. This include the name of the register, Main ID, Public Title, Date of Registration.