Instructions & Policies

Articles are accepted for publication on the condition that they are contributed solely to JLUMHS. As per HEC policy all manuscripts will be submitted through our Open Journal System website by registering and logging into the account along with all the required documents. One hard copy of all the manuscripts along with all the required documents should be submitted for publication at our office.
All articles are reviewed by two referees with double blind peer review process. Acceptance is based on significance, originality, and validity of the material. If the article is accepted for publication, editorial revisions may be made to aid clarity and understanding without altering the meaning.
Statements and opinions expressed in the articles and communications herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Editor(s) or publisher, and the Editor(s) and publisher disclaim any responsibility or liability for such material. Neither the Editor(s) nor the publisher guarantees, warrants, or endorses any product or service mentioned in this publication; neither do they guarantee any claim made by the manufacturer of such product or service.

Preparation of manuscripts
Only original manuscripts will be considered for publication. Correct preparation of the manuscript by the authors will expedite the reviewing and publication procedures. Please note the following requirements.
Text for original articles should not exceed 3000 words, Review article 4000 maximum words, letter to editor 1000 words, short survey 1500 words, 2000 words for a case report. One original hard copy of the manuscript must be submitted to the Editor along with all supporting material (Undertaking duly filled with authors full names, designation, contribution in detail and signed by all the authors, processing fees, Ethical permission from the institute for the study, additional permissions for data collection is from the site other than the main institute). The hard copy must be printed on one side only, double-spaced, on 22 × 28 cm (8½ × 11 inch) paper with adequate margins. The article, including all tables, should be formatted in Microsoft Word.

Style
Manuscripts must conform to acceptable English usage. Standard abbreviations should be used consistently throughout the article. Abbreviations should be spelled out the first time they appear in the text and followed in parentheses by the abbreviation.

Pagination
Begin numbering with the title page as page 1, the structured abstract page as page 2, and continue throughout the references, figure legends, and tables. Place page numbers in the upper right corner of each page, Document Font should be Arial size 12 double spaced text format.

Title page
The title page should be typed double-spaced and include;
Complete title of the article (Should not exceed 16-18 words)
Name(s) of author(s)
Department(s)
Institutional affiliations and location
Official phone number, cell number and personal /official e-mail address) of the correspondence author and institution address.

Please Note: The word counts given below do not include the abstract, references, figure legends or table captions.

Structured Abstract / Full Article
Following format should be adopted for Original Articles.
Each original article should have structured abstract of not more than 250 words. Abstract must be written under the following subheadings:
Objective
Methodology
Results
Conclusion
Key words (minimum 6).
The abstract may not contain data not presented in the manuscript.
Main Text: Text must be arranged under the following headings and do not exceed 3000 words:
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgment(s) if any
Ethical permission
Conflict of interest
Funding
References

Introduction: It should contain brief review of the topic with strictly relevant literature in such a way that it highlights the importance of the study and that the purpose of the study should be clearly stated and should be referenced in Vancouver style & historical background. At the end, objectives and the rationale for the study should be mentioned.

Methodology: In this section, mention study design, place, setting and duration of the study. Sampling technique and sample size should be clearly mentioned. Clearly state the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the subjects. The methods and the apparatus used should be identified (with manufacturer’s name and address in the parenthesis), and procedures described in sufficient detail to allow other workers to reproduce the results. Well-established methods should be cited with references. Statistical tools used for analysis of results should also be mentioned in methods section with enough detail to enable the readers or researchers to verify the reported findings.

Results: Should include factual findings of the research study done and Important findings must be narrated in the tables and figures in logical sequence in numerical as well as in percentages. Repetitions should be avoided. Each table and figure should be properly labeled with caption headings and numbers (e.g. Table I, Figure I) on separate pages. The write up of the results in the text should highlight the important findings without duplication of presentation displayed in the tables / figures, explanation of the findings should be reserved for the discussion section. Only important observations should be emphasized in precise manner.

Discussion: It should emphasize the new and important aspects, implications and any limitations of the study. In this section, findings should be compared with already existing literature.

Conclusion: It is restricted to the study and is drawn from the results and discussion also should be authors own interpretation of the data, should not be linked to other studies. Claiming priority or alluding to work that has not completed, must be avoided.

Recommendations: If author(s) want to present appropriate recommendations or suggestions, these may be included after conclusion section.

Acknowledgements: Persons who have contributed intellectually or technically to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship as per ICMJE criteria may be named and their function or contribution described. For example, “Scientific advisor”, “Critical review of study proposal “, “data collection” or “participation in clinical trial”. Such persons must have permitted to be named.

Conflict of Interest: Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are 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.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ("Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals") -- February 2006
Authors of manuscripts submitted to JLUMHS must inform about funding sources for the research they intend to publish.

Statement of Informed consent:­ Authors should identify that informed consent was obtained when  applicable.

Human and Animal Rights: 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 (1). 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 were followed.
1- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ("Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals") -- February 2006

Funding: All research articles should have a funding acknowledgement statement included in the manuscript in the form of a sentence under a separate heading entitled ‘Funding’ directly after your Acknowledgements and Declaration of Conflicting Interests, if applicable, and prior to any Notes and your References. The funding agency should be written out in full, followed by the grant number in square brackets, see following example:
This work was supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number xxx].
Multiple grant numbers should be separated by comma and space. Where the research was supported by more than one agency, the different agencies should be separated by semi-colon, with “and” before the final funder. Thus:
This work was supported by the Trust [grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]; the Natural Environment Research Council [grant number zzzz]; and the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number aaaa].
In some cases, research is not funded by a specific project grant, but rather from the block grant and other resources available to a university, college or other research institution. Where no specific funding has been provided for the research we ask that corresponding authors use the following sentence:
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Please include this information under a separate heading entitled ‘Funding’ directly after any Acknowledgements and Declaration of Conflicting Interests (if applicable), and prior to any Notes and your References.

References
The references should be in Vancouver style and  list must be numbered serially in the order in which the references appear in the text and typed double-spaced on separate sheets. References should be latest within 5 years period with format to the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” (http://www.icmje.org). Reference citations to periodicals should include, in the following order: names of the first 6 authors followed by et al,. (Note: NLM now lists all authors.)  Title, Journal, Year, Volume, and pages; for example:
 Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL. Solid organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(4): 284-7.
Journal abbreviations must follow the style used in Cumulated Index Medicus. Book references should include, in the following order: names of the first 3 authors, chapter title, editor(s), book title, volume (if any), edition (if any), city, publisher, year, and inclusive pages of citation (if any); for example:
 Sherry S. Detection of thrombi. In: Strauss HE, Pitt B, James AE, editors. Cardiovascular nuclear medicine. St. Louis: Mosby; 1974. p. 273-85.
Meanwhile, reference to chapter in a book should be given in following order:
 Ansel HJ. Normal pancreatic duct. In: Stewart ET, Vennes JA, Geenen JE, eds. Atlas of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. St. Louis: CV Mosby, 1977: 43-7.

Illustrations and legends
Submit a 1 copy of each picture on high-quality of illustration in the form of a glossy photograph for best results. Use thick, solid lines and bold, solid type. Place lettering on a white background; avoid reverse type (white lettering on a dark background). Illustrations (1 complete set of glossy prints) should be numbered in the order of their mention in the text and should be marked lightly on the back with the first author's last name and an arrow to indicate the top edge. Only good photographic prints of original drawings should be supplied. All lettering must be done professionally. Do not send original artwork, x-ray films, or ECG tracings. Glossy photographs are preferred; good black-and-white contrast is essential. Preferred size for submitted illustrations is 5 × 7 inches. Suitable figure legends should be type written double spaced on a separate sheet of paper and included at the end of the manuscript. If a figure has been taken from previously copyrighted material, the legend must give full credit to the original source and letters of permission must be submitted with the manuscript. Articles appear in both the print and online versions of the Journal, and wording of the letter should specify permission in all forms and media. Failure to get electronic permission rights may result in the images not appearing in the online version. Illustrations cannot be returned by the publisher. Figures may be submitted in electronic format. All images should be at least 5 inches wide. Images should be provided in EPS or TIF format. Macintosh or PC format is acceptable. Graphics software such as Photoshop and Illustrator should be used in the creation of the art. Color images need to be CMYK, at least 300 DPI, and be accompanied by a digital color proof, not a color laser print or color photocopy. Please include hardware and software information, in addition to the file names.

Tables
Tables should be self-explanatory and numbered in Roman numerals in the order of their mention in the text. Provide a brief title caption above the table. Type each table double-spaced on a separate page. Abbreviations should be defined in a double-spaced footnote at the end of the table. If any material in a table or a table itself has been taken from previously copyrighted material, a double-spaced footnote must give full credit to the original source and permission of the author and publisher must be obtained. Send letters of permission to the Editor with the manuscript.

Measurements
All measurements should be in international standard metric units.

CASE REPORTS
It is expected that submitted Case Reports will include a detailed analysis of the case and a review of the available literature. Only those case reports which are truly original and are likely to significantly influence medical practice are considered for publication. Others may be considered for publication in an abbreviated form as a letter to the editor.
Meanwhile, for a case report, a brief abstract about case, introduction about subject, case report, discussion and references parts should be given.

REVIEWS ARTICLE
Substantive reviews of biomedical topics will be considered for publication. They will be evaluated by peer review of the manuscript prior to consideration of publication.
Review articles should not exceed 4,000 words in length; the abstract must not exceed 250 words; we
recommend a limit of 50-70 references.

 EDITORIALS/COMMENTRY
It should be a brief, substantiated commentary on current topic of high interest and limited up to 1000 words.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR/COMMENTS
Brief letters or notes to the Editor regarding published material or information of timely interest. Letters to the Editor should concern only articles that have been published recently in the Journal. A response to the letter will be requested from the authors of the article in question, and both the letter and the response will be published together. Letters should be up to 1000 words, including references and tables.

Plagiarism Policy
Soon after submission and completion of primary audit process, manuscripts are cheeked for similarity index using TURNITIN software provided by HEC as plagiarism checker and less than 19% similarity index of any manuscript will be considered the eligibility to proceed further for peer review.

Definition of Plagiarism:According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Plagiarism is defined as "taking and using the thoughts, writings, and inventions of another person as one's own". This, or various similar definitions found in recognized publications/ documents, are very broad and can be used to create awareness about Plagiarism but are not practical enough to apply in order to ascertain guilt or innocence in specific cases. In order to establish the violation of ethical norms, or academic or intellectual dishonesty resulting from Plagiarism and to take punitive actions in this regard, it is necessary that the variety of forms in which Plagiarism manifests itself are known. These include but are not limited to the following:
“Verbatim copying, near-verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing portions of another author's paper or unpublished report without citing the exact reference.Copying elements of another author's paper, such as equations or illustrations that are not common knowledge, or copying or purposely paraphrasing sentences without citing the source. Verbatim copying portions of another author's paper or from reports by citing but not clearly differentiating what text has been copied (e.g. not applying quotation marks correctly) and/or not citing the source correctly”1.
"The unacknowledged use of computer programs, mathematical/ computer models/ algorithms, computer software in all forms, macros, spreadsheets, web pages, databases, mathematical deviations and calculations, designs/ models/ displays of any sort, diagrams, graphs, tables, drawings, works of art of any sort, fine art pieces or artifacts, digital images, computer-aided design drawings, GIS files, photographs, maps, music/ composition of any sort, posters, presentations and tracing."2
"Self-plagiarism, that is, the verbatim or near-verbatim re-use of significant portions of one's own copyrighted work without citing the original source."1
Our journal discourages this practice and do not tolerate Plagiarism.

1. ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) Policy on Plagiarism”(http://www.acm.org/pubs/plagiarism%20policy.html) 
2. Academic Integrity Statement: Appendix 1” (University of Southampton Calendar 2006/7)(http://www.calendar.soton.ac.uk/sectionIV/part8a.html)

Peer Review Process
When manuscript passed through TURNITIN, one of the members of Editorial Board is assigned to assess the suitability and format of the manuscript according to the scope of the journal as process referred as “Primary Review”. All manuscripts than undergo “DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW” process by 2 subject specialists. The suggestions and objections of the reviewers after blinding are communicated to authors and only when reviewers are satisfied with the response of the authors only then the manuscripts are accepted for publication.

Ethical considerations
Authors should identify that Ethical Review Committee permission from the institute was obtained before conducting the study and informed consent from the patients was taken. The manuscript should also include the notation that the study was approved by the institutional committee on human research. Photographs of identifiable persons must be accompanied by signed releases showing informed consent. When reporting experiments on human subjects, it should be clearly indicated whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1983.
Patient’s names, initials or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material should not be used. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institution’s or a national research council’s guidelines for or any national law on, the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. All clinical research papers must be accompanied by evidence of peer review. The date the project was approved, when available, should also be included.

JLUMHS follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged.
 Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients", "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").
It is important to note that:

• Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
• All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
• Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
• Once authorship certificate is submitted no further change will be allowed in the sequence and addition of new authors.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. The corresponding author should ensure that:

• All the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported.
• He/ she should be available throughout the submission and peer review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication.

Deceased Authors
Deceased authors would be included with a death dagger (†) next to the author's name and a footnote stating that the author is deceased along with the date of death.

• Increases transparency
• Allows compliance with data policies.
• Encourages good scientific practice and encourages trust

1. A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.
2. In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.
3. The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note. It is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.
4. The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the PDF indicating on each page that it has been “retracted.”

Editorial expressions of concern
Where substantial doubt arises as to the honesty or integrity of a submitted or published article, journal editors may consider issuing an expression of concern. However, expressions of concern should only be issued if an investigation into the problems relating to the article has proven inconclusive, and if there remain strong indicators that the concerns are valid.  Under some rare cases, an editorial expression of concern may also be issued when an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time.

The expression of concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.

1. The editorial office of the journal receives a complaint that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
2. The complainant needs to clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph should be clearly highlighted and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
3. The editorial office will conduct an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact.
4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an explanation with factual statements and any available evidence.
5. If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the editorial office will take the following actions depending on the  situation:

1. If the article has been published, an erratum or retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate wording of the description.
2. If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.

6. In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant institution or other authorities as required.
7. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved.
8. The complaint case will thereupon be considered concluded.