All manuscripts should be submitted online and then are automatically acknowledged by e-mail which mentions tracking article ID for future reference. In case you do not receive acknowledging e-mail, please resubmit the article (or check spam). Do not send articles by e-mail. The progress of a manuscript through the editorial process can be subsequently tracked by authors on the website.
Article submissions can be divided into two, namely new and revised manuscript. You can select a "new manuscript" by submitting a single manuscript in word form, while for revised submissions you can select a "revised manuscript" to be accepted and provide the items required for publication of your article. The editorial board determines the proper script after receiving recommendations from peer reviewers. Revision of the manuscript is the responsibility of the author, and the script that is not appropriate will be returned to the author.
TYPES OF MANUSCRIPT
- Original articles
Original Articles should report on original clinical studies or research not previously published or being considered for publication elsewhere. The text should not exceed 7000 words, including a list of authors and their affiliations, corresponding author, acknowledgments and figure legends, with an abstract of a maximum of 250 words, a list of a minimum of 25 references primarily from reputable international/international /accredited national journals, and maximum of five (5) tables and figures
- Systematic reviews
Systematic Reviews are exhaustive, critical assessments of evidence from different data sources in relation to a given subject in the area of nursing. A systematic search of the relevant data sources should be carried out and the items collected should be carefully evaluated for inclusion based on apriori defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. A description and an analytical graphic representation of the process should be provided. The specific features of the participants' or patients' populations of the studies included in the review should be described as well as the measures of exposure and the outcome with the indication towards the corresponding data sources. A structured abstract is required (the same as for short reviews). The text must not exceed 8 pages including the acknowledgments, with no more than four tables and/or figures and a minimum of 20 references.
- Meta Analyses
Meta-analyses should follow the same guidelines for systematic reviews. They are expected to provide exhaustive information and statistical assessment of the pooled estimates of predefined outcomes, study heterogeneity and quality, possible publication bias, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses when and where appropriate. Depending on the type of study, the authors are invited to submit PRISMA flow diagrams or MOOSE checklists. Both systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be dealt with as original articles are, as far as the editorial process is concerned.
This must include the following information:
- Title of the manuscript
- Names (spelled out in full) of all the authors*, and the institutions with which they are affiliated)
- Corresponding author's details (name, email, mailing address, telephone and fax numbers)
- Authors contribution (Clearly state the contribution of each author)
- Author biographies (Academic or structural position in your institution and ORCiD iD)
- Ethical consideration (State the complete name of institutions or ethics committee and approval number)
Write a structured abstract, including 5 headings:
Background: One or two sentences on the background
Objective: purpose of the study
Methods: Describe the research design, settings (please do not mention the actual location, but use geographic type or number if necessary); Participants (details of how the study population was selected, inclusion and exclusion criteria, numbers entering and leaving the study, and any relevant clinical and demographic characteristics)
Results: Report the main outcome(s)/findings including (where relevant) levels of statistical significance and confidence intervals
Conclusion: Should relate to the study aims and hypotheses
Abstract is not more than 250 words and add key words (3-5 words). Wording should be concise and present only the essential elements. 'Telegraphic' statements without verbs are acceptable. Abbreviations are not allowed.
This is your main text with no authors' detail. All illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end of the manuscript.
- Clearly identify the research problem, rationale, context, international relevance of topic
- Provide the gap to show the significant of your study
- Present the scientific, conceptual or theoretical framework that guided the study, identifying and providing an overview of the conceptual model and/or theory where appropriate.
- Explain connections between study variables and support those connections with relevant theoretical and empirical literature.
- Explain the connections between the scientific hypothesis, conceptual model or theory and the study variables.
- Objective(s): State the objectives of the study as a narrative study purpose or as research questions or hypotheses to be tested at the end of introduction. For example, ‘The aim of the study was to…’
Methods should be structured, including:
Identify the specific research design used, for example correlational, experimental, quasi-experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal study.
Place and time of research
- Identify the sampling strategy/strategies used: random; stratified; convenience; purposive (state what purpose).
- Identify the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, ‘The inclusion criteria were…’, ‘The exclusion criteria were…’ Explain how participants were recruited.
- Identify the size of the sample (and the population, if appropriate). Report the sample size calculation, or power analysis, if appropriate; if not appropriate or not undertaken, provide another type of justification for the sample size.
- Clearly state the information whether you develop, adopt, adapt or modify the instrument
- Clearly state the validity and reliability of the instrument
- Clearly state the name of instrument including its citation and reference
- Explain briefly the type of instrument, its scale and how to use it
- If translation has been required from the original language, please explain the procedures used to maintain validity of translated tools
Intervention (this heading is only for experimental studies)
- Explain briefly the process of intervention, setting, and those who did intervention
- If you have control group, please explain what kind of intervention you do to them
- Describe when and where the data were collected
- Describe who collect the data
- Any research assistants/enumerators/local coordinators?
Describe the techniques used to analyze the data, including computer software used, if appropriate. For example, ‘SPSS version X was used to analyze the data. Analysis of variance techniques were used to test the hypotheses.’
- Identify any particular ethical issues that were attached to this research. Provide a statement of ethics committee approval. Do not name the university or other institution from which ethics committee approval was obtained; state only that ethics committee approval was obtained from a university and/or whatever other organization is relevant.
- Explain any other approvals obtained, for example, local site arrangements to meet research governance requirements. If, according to local regulations, no formal ethical scrutiny was required or undertaken, please state this.
- The complete name of the institution and approval number should be stated in the title page.
- Start with a description of characteristics of sample. For example: ‘The study participants ranged in age from X to Y years…’ Always include age (range and mean) and gender distribution.
- Present results explicitly for each study aim or research question or hypothesis. Indicate whether each hypothesis was supported or declined.
- Use subheadings as appropriate.
- Use figures and tables as needed, but try to limit to no more than 5 (five) tables or figures. Each figure/table should be referred to in the text, but do not repeat in the text material which is set out in tables. Rather, identify key points in text, and refer readers to tables for detail.
- If the table shows the statistic results, please state the name of statistical analysis you use.
- Discussion must be in relation to the conceptual or theoretical framework and existing literature. Do previous research findings match or differ from yours?
- Draw conclusions about what new knowledge has emerged from the study. For example, this new knowledge could contribute to new conceptualizations or question existing ones; it could lead to the development of tentative/substantive theories (or even hypotheses), it could advance/question existing theories or provide methodological insights, or it could provide data that could lead to improvements in practice. What readers want to know is what your work adds to this topic.
- End with study limitations including but not confined to sample representativeness and/or sample size and generalizability/external validity of the results.
The limitations of the study describe things or variables that are actually covered by the scope of the research but due to certain methodological or procedural difficulties so that they cannot be included in the study and are beyond the control of the researcher.
- Provide real conclusions, not just a summary/repetition of the findings.
- Draw conclusions about the adequacy of the theory in relation to the data. Indicate whether the data supported or refuted the theory. Indicate whether the conceptual model was a useful and adequate guide for the study.
- Identify implications/recommendations for practice/research/education/management as appropriate, and consistent with the limitations.
Use APA (American Psychological Association) 6th Edition with DOI number format for citation and references.