Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
NeuroPharmac Journal registered with the ISSN International Centre.
Please click here to for the ISSN International Centre page of NeuroPharmac Journal. https://portal.issn.org/resource/issn/2456-3927
A manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it is being submitted to NeuroPharmac Journal alone at that point in time and has not been published anywhere, simultaneously submitted, or already accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal expects that authors would authorize one of them to correspond with the Journal for all matters related to the manuscript. All manuscripts received are duly acknowledged. On submission, editors review all submitted manuscripts initially for suitability for formal review. Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical flaws or lack of a significant message are rejected before proceeding for formal peer-review. Manuscripts that are unlikely to be of interest to the NeuroPharmac Journal readers are also liable to be rejected at this stage itself.
Manuscripts that are found potentially suitable for publication in NeuroPharmac Journal are sent to two or more expert reviewers. During submission, the contributor is requested to provide names of two or three qualified reviewers who have had experience in the subject of the submitted manuscript, but this is not mandatory. The reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institutes as the contributor/s. As a matter of policy, we generally do not send the same article to the suggested reviewer. The journal follows a double-blind review process, wherein the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity. Every manuscript is also assigned to a member of the editorial team, who based on the comments from the reviewers takes a final decision on the manuscript. The comments and suggestions (acceptance/ rejection/ amendments in manuscript) received from reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author. If required, the author is requested to provide a point by point response to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. This process is repeated till reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript.
Manuscripts accepted for publication are copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author. The corresponding author is expected to return the corrected proofs within three days. It may not be possible to incorporate corrections received after that period. The whole process of submission of the manuscript to a final decision and sending and receiving proofs is completed online.
All manuscripts are submitted with the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or thesis) and are not currently under consideration for publication by another journal. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all authors have contributed to, read and approved the final manuscript for submission. The authors should keep a copy of manuscript submitted in case of revision, rejection, loss or damage. Receipt of manuscript will be acknowledged and a decision regarding acceptance made as soon as possible. Accepted manuscripts may be subject to editorial revision without notice.
Peer Review Policy
All manuscripts are subject to blind peer review and are expected to meet the rigorous standards of academic excellence. The authors should provide up to three potential peer reviewers with detailed contact information including e-mail address. These should be experts in their field of study, who will be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. If not provided, potential reviewers will be identified by their publication record or recommended by the Editorial Board members. Recommended reviewers who have been a coauthor with the corresponding author within five years prior to manuscript submission will not be used. Reviewers recommended by authors will be only considered to use when other appropriate ones cannot be found.
ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE POLICY
To ensure that submitted manuscripts have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or thesis) and are not currently under consideration for publication by another journal.
To ensure all authors have contributed to, read and approved the final manuscript for submission.
To ensure that all data in the submitted manuscript are authentic. Maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript and to provide this data upon reasonable request.
To inform the editor of any other submitted manuscripts that might contain overlapping or closely related content.
To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original, and to acknowledge and cite any content reproduced from other sources.
To ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements (e.g. WMA Declaration of Helsinki, the Guidelines of Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) Human Subject Protections, NIH Policy on Use of Laboratory Animals, or equivalent). For studies involving human subjects, authors should obtain express permission from subjects and respect their privacy. Confirmation that approval has been sought and obtained should be included in the manuscript where applicable. Experiments involving animals should follow the appropriate institution or the National Research Council Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals.
NeuroPharmac Journal follows the comprehensive guidelines and advice. Such notable organizations include:
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE https://publicationethics.org/)
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME http://www.wame.org/)
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE http://www.icmje.org/)
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT http://www.consort-statement.org/)
Declare any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process.
To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified, and to cooperate with the editor and publisher to provide retractions or corrections if necessary.
Keep a copy of the manuscript submitted in case of revision, rejection, loss or damage. Receipt of manuscripts will be acknowledged and a decision regarding acceptance made as soon as possible. Accepted manuscripts may be subject to editorial revision without notice.
To ensure that accepted manuscripts meet the rigorous standards of academic excellence.
To review submitted manuscripts objectively, and in a timely manner.
To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author, and to not retain or copy the manuscript in any manner.
To alert the editor of any published or previously submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
To point out any relevant published work that is not yet cited.
To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest between the reviewer and author/research funders(financial, institutional, collaborative or otherwise). To alert the editor to any potential conflicts of interest and if necessary, withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
To act in a balanced, fair and objective way while carrying out duties without discrimination based on sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, gender, ethnic or geographical background of the authors. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to accept and/or reject manuscripts.
Ensure that there is no conflict of interest with respect to manuscripts they reject/accept.
To ensure that all manuscripts, including submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues are handled in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit without any commercial influence.
To preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of any complaints, ethical or otherwise, in accordance with the policies and procedures of COPE (www.publicationethics.org). To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved, and documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
To promote the publication of corrections and/or retractions when errors are found.
To ensure that all articles published meet the standards and requirements outlined above.
To ensure that any corrections, retractions, and/or clarifications are published when necessary.
To maintain the integrity of the academic record, and preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Identification of Unethical Behavior
Misconduct and/or unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
Whoever informs the editor or publisher of misconduct should gather sufficient evidence and information in order for an investigation to be initiated. Evidence should be gathered in a discreet manner, in order to avoid spreading allegations beyond those who absolutely need to know, in order to protect the confidentiality of the parties in question until a conclusion has been reached.
All allegations will be taken seriously and handled in the same manner.
The editor will take initial action, with additional input from the publisher where appropriate.
In every case, authors will be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
Misconduct and Possible Outcomes
Minor breaches of conduct might be dealt with internally, without the need for any outside consultation;
Depending on the severity of the infraction, other outcomes may include, but are not limited to the following:
Informing the author or reviewer of the infraction, and educating him/her on how to avoid future breaches of conduct;
A written warning regarding the breach of conduct;
Publication of a formal notice and/or editorial detailing the misconduct;
A formal letter to the author’s department head and/or funding agency;
Retraction of the publication from the journal, and informing both the Abstracting & Indexing services as well as the readership of the publication of the infraction;
Suspension of the author’s eligibility for publication;
Reporting the breach of conduct to a higher authority for further investigation and action.
By submitting a manuscript to NeuroPharmac Journal, all authors agree that all copyrights of all materials included in the submitted manuscript will be exclusively transferred to the NeuroPharmac Journal once the manuscript is accepted.
Once the paper is published, the copyright will be released by the publisher under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), enabling the unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the published article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. If the manuscript contains a figure or table reproduced from a book or another journal article, the authors should obtain permission from the copyright holder before submitting the manuscript, and be fully responsible for any legal and/or financial consequences if such permissions are not obtained.
Preservation, Archiving & Repository Policy
All published version preserved by using the long-term preservation services. Our Journal uses the Internet Archive policy and hosting server of publisher at https://saharalibrary.com
Similarity Check (Plagiarism) Policy
All submitted manuscripts to our Journal evaluated by similarity check services by iThenticate (turnitin) to maintain the quality of published works.
The Journal follows the ICMJE Criterias For Authorship and Non-Author Contributors. Broadly this is represented below :
The ICMJE recommends that authorship is 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.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.
Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are the acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. 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”).
Contributors should provide a description of contributions made by each of them towards the manuscript. The description should be divided in following categories, as applicable: concept, design, the definition of intellectual content, literature search, clinical studies, experimental studies, data acquisition, data analysis, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing and manuscript review. One or more author should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole from inception to published article and should be designated as ‘guarantor’.
Conflicts of Interest
All authors of must disclose any and all conflicts of interest they may have with publication of the manuscript or an institution or product that is mentioned in the manuscript and/or is important to the outcome of the study presented. Authors should also disclose the conflict of interest with products that compete with those mentioned in their manuscript.
Clinical Trial Registry
NeuroPharmac Journal would only publish clinical trials that have been registered with a clinical trial registry that allows free online access to the public.
Registration in the following trial registers is acceptable:
This is applicable to clinical trials that have begun enrollment of subjects in or after June 2008. Clinical trials that have commenced enrollment of subjects prior to June 2008 would be considered for publication in NeuroPharmac Jurnal only if they have been registered retrospectively with the clinical trial registry that allows unhindered online access to public without charging any fees. Clinical trial registry numbers should be mandatorily be mentioned below the abstract.
Types of Manuscript
These include observational studies ,clinical trials, studies of screening and diagnostic test, outcome studies, cost effectiveness analyses, case-control series, and surveys with high response rate. The text of original articles amounting to up to 3000 words (excluding Abstract, references and Tables) should be divided into sections with the headings Abstract, Key-words, Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion, References, Tables and Figure legends.
State the purpose and summarize the rationale for the study or observation.
Materials and Methods
It should include and describe the following aspects:
Ethics: When reporting studies on human beings, indicate 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 2000 (available at http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e.html). For prospective studies involving human participants, authors are expected to mention about approval of (regional/ national/ institutional or independent Ethics Committee or Review Board, obtaining informed consent from adult research participants and obtaining assent for children aged over 7 years participating in the trial. The age beyond which assent would be required could vary as per regional and/ or national guidelines. Ensure confidentiality of subjects by desisting from mentioning participants’ names, initials or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institution’s or a national research council’s guide for, or any national law on the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Evidence for approval by a local Ethics Committee (for both human as well as animal studies) must be supplied by the authors on demand. Animal experimental procedures should be as humane as possible and the details of anesthetics and analgesics used should be clearly stated. The ethical standards of experiments must be in accordance with the guidelines provided by the CPCSEA and World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Humans for studies involving experimental animals and human beings, respectively). The journal will not consider any paper which is ethically unacceptable.
Selection and Description of Participants: Describe your selection of the observational or experimental participants (patients including controls) clearly, including eligibility and exclusion criteria and a description of the source population. 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.
Reports of randomized clinical trials should present information on all major study elements, including the protocol, assignment of interventions (methods of randomization, concealment of allocation to treatment groups), and the method of masking (blinding), based on the CONSORT Statement (http://www.consort-statement.org).
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 summarized in the Results section, specify the statistical methods used to analyze them. Avoid non-technical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as ‘random’ (which implies a randomizing 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.
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; 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. Where scientifically appropriate, analyses of the data by variables such as age and sex should be included.
Include summary of key findings (primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, results as they relate to a prior hypothesis); Strengths and limitations of the study (study question, study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation); Interpretation and implications in the context of the totality of evidence (is there a systematic review to refer to, if not, could one be reasonably done here and now?, what this study adds to the available evidence, effects on patient care and health policy, possible mechanisms); Controversiesraised by this study; and Future research directions (for this particular research collaboration, underlying mechanisms, clinical 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. About 30 references can be included. These articles generally should not have more than six authors.
It is expected that these articles would be written by individuals who have done substantial work on the subject or are considered experts in the field. A short summary of the work done by the contributor(s) in the field of review should accompany the manuscript.
The prescribed word count is up to 3000 words excluding tables, references and abstract. The manuscript may have about 90 references. The manuscript should have an unstructured Abstract (250 words) representing an accurate summary of the article. The section titles would depend upon the topic reviewed. Authors submitting review article should include a section describing the methods used for locating, selecting, extracting, and synthesizing data. These methods should also be summarized in the abstract.
The journal expects the contributors to give post-publication updates on the subject of review. The update should be brief, covering the advances in the field after the publication of the article and should be sent as a letter to the editor, as and when major development occurs in the field.
The section aims to summarise research evidence as available from high-quality systematic review for healthcare workers, patients and policymakers.
New, interesting and rare cases can be reported. They should be unique, describing a great diagnostic or therapeutic challenge and providing a learning point for the readers. Cases with clinical significance or implications and of educational value will be given priority. These communications could be of up to 1000 words (excluding Abstract and references) and should have the following headings: Abstract (unstructured), Key-words, Introduction, Case report, Discussion, Reference, Tables and Legends in that order.
The manuscript could be of up to 1000 words (excluding references and abstract) and could be supported with up to 10 references. Case Reports could be authored by up to four authors.
Letter to the Editor
They should be short and decisive and be related to articles previously published (including editorials/commentaties) in the Journal or views expressed in the journal. They should not be preliminary observations that need a later paper for validation nor can it be case reports. The letter could have up to 500 words and maximum of 5 references. It could be generally authored by not more than four authors.
Editorial, Guest Editorial, and Commentary are solicited by the editorial board.
References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text (not in alphabetic order). Identify references in text, tables, and legends by Arabic numerals in superscript with square bracket after the punctuation marks. 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. Use the style of the examples below, which are based on the formats used by the NLM in Index Medicus. The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus. Use complete name of the journal for non-indexed journals. Avoid using abstracts as references. 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.
The commonly cited types of references are shown here, for other types of references such as newspaper items please refer to ICMJE Guidelines (http://www.icmje.org or http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html).
Articles in Journals
- Standard journal article (for up to six authors): Shukla N, Husain N, Agarwal GG, Husain M. Utility of cysticercus fasciolaris antigen in Dot ELISA for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis. Indian J Med Sci 2008;62:222-7.
- Standard journal article (for more than six authors): List the first six contributors followed by et al.
Nozari Y, Hashemlu A, Hatmi ZN, Sheikhvatan M, Iravani A, Bazdar A, et al. Outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients without major risk factors and patients with at least one major risk factor for coronary artery disease. Indian J Med Sci 2007;61:547-54
- Volume with supplement: Shen HM, Zhang QF. Risk assessment of nickel carcinogenicity and occupational lung cancer. Environ Health Perspect 1994; 102 Suppl 1:275-82.
- Issue with supplement: Payne DK, Sullivan MD, Massie MJ. Women’s psychological reactions to breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1996; 23(1, Suppl 2):89-97.
Books and Other Monographs
- Personal author(s): Ringsven MK, Bond D. Gerontology and leadership skills for nurses. 2nd ed. Albany (NY): Delmar Publishers; 1996.
- Editor(s), compiler(s) as author: Norman IJ, Redfern SJ, editors. Mental health care for elderly people. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996.
- Chapter in a book: Phillips SJ, Whisnant JP. Hypertension and stroke. In: Laragh JH, Brenner BM, editors. Hypertension: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1995. pp. 465-78.
Electronic Sources as reference
Journal article on the Internet
Abood S. Quality improvement initiative in nursing homes: the ANA acts in an advisory role. Am J Nurs [serial on the Internet]. 2002 Jun [cited 2002 Aug 12];102(6):[about 3 p.]. Available from: http://www.nursingworld.org/AJN/2002/june/Wawatch.htm
Monograph on the Internet
Foley KM, Gelband H, editors. Improving palliative care for cancer [monograph on the Internet]. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001 [cited 2002 Jul 9]. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074029/html/.
Cancer-Pain.org [homepage on the Internet]. New York: Association of Cancer Online Resources, Inc.; c2000-01 [updated 2002 May 16; cited 2002 Jul 9]. Available from: http://www.cancer-pain.org/.
Part of a homepage/Web site
American Medical Association [homepage on the Internet]. Chicago: The Association; c1995-2002 [updated 2001 Aug 23; cited 2002 Aug 12]. AMA Office of Group Practice Liaison; [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/1736.html
- Tables should be self-explanatory and should not duplicate textual material.
- Tables with more than 10 columns and 25 rows are not acceptable.
- Number tables, in Arabic numerals, consecutively in the order of their first citation in the text and supply a brief title for each.
- Place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading.
- Explain in footnotes all non-standard abbreviations that are used in each table.
- Obtain permission for all fully borrowed, adapted, and modified tables and provide a credit line in the footnote.
- For footnotes use the following symbols, in this sequence: *, †, ‡, §, ||,¶ , **, ††, ‡‡
- Tables with their legends should be provided at the end of the text after the references. The tables along with their number should be cited at the relevant place in the text
- Upload the images in JPEG format. The file size should be within 1024 kb in size while uploading.
- Figures should be numbered consecutively according to the order in which they have been first cited in the text.
- Labels, numbers, and symbols should be clear and of uniform size. The lettering for figures should be large enough to be legible after reduction to fit the width of a printed column.
- Symbols, arrows, or letters used in photomicrographs should contrast with the background and should be marked neatly with transfer type or by tissue overlay and not by pen.
- Titles and detailed explanations belong in the legends for illustrations not on the illustrations themselves.
- When graphs, scatter-grams or histograms are submitted the numerical data on which they are based should also be supplied.
- The photographs and figures should be trimmed to remove all the unwanted areas.
- If photographs of individuals are used, their pictures must be accompanied by written permission to use the photograph.
- If a figure has been published elsewhere, acknowledge the original source and submit written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce the material. A credit line should appear in the legend for such figures.
- Legends for illustrations: Type or print out legends (maximum 40 words, excluding the credit line) for illustrations using double spacing, 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 in the legend. Explain the internal scale (magnification) and identify the method of staining in photomicrographs.
- Final figures for print production: Send sharp, glossy, un-mounted, color photographic prints, with height of 4 inches and width of 6 inches at the time of submitting the revised manuscript. Print outs of digital photographs are not acceptable. If digital images are the only source of images, ensure that the image has minimum resolution of 300 dpi or 1800 x 1600 pixels in TIFF format. Send the images on a CD. Each figure should have a label pasted (avoid use of liquid gum for pasting) on its back indicating the number of the figure, the running title, top of the figure and the legends of the figure. Do not write the contributor/s’ name/s. Do not write on the back of figures, scratch, or mark them by using paper clips.
- The Journal reserves the right to crop, rotate, reduce, or enlarge the photographs to an acceptable size.
Protection of Patients’ Rights to Privacy:
Identifying information should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, sonograms, CT scans, etc., and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian, wherever applicable) gives informed consent for publication. Authors should remove patients’ names from figures unless they have obtained informed consent from the patients. The journal abides by ICMJE guidelines:
1) Authors, not the journals nor the publisher, need to obtain the patient consent form before the publication and have the form properly archived. The consent forms are not to be uploaded with the cover letter or sent through email to editorial or publisher offices.
2) If the manuscript contains patient images that preclude anonymity, or a description that has obvious indication to the identity of the patient, a statement about obtaining informed patient consent should be indicated in the manuscript.
Sending a revised Manuscript:
The revised version of the manuscript should be submitted online in a manner similar to that used for submission of the manuscript for the first time. However, there is no need to submit the “First Page” or “Covering Letter” file while submitting a revised version. When submitting a revised manuscript, contributors are requested to include, the ‘referees’ remarks along with point to point clarification at the beginning in the revised file itself. In addition, they are expected to mark the changes as underlined or colored text in the article.
- Covering letter
- Signed by all contributors
- Previous publication / presentations mentioned
- Source of funding mentioned
- Conflicts of interest disclosed
- Middle name initials provided
- Author for correspondence, with e-mail address provided
- Number of contributors restricted as per the instructions
- Identity not revealed in paper except title page (e.g. name of the institute in Methods, citing previous study as ‘our study’, names on figure labels, name of institute in photographs, etc.)
Presentation and format
- Double spacing
- Margins 2.5 cm from all four sides
- Title page contains all the desired information
- Running title provided (not more than 50 characters)
- Abstract page contains the full title of the manuscript
- Abstract provided (about 150 words for case reports and 250 words for original articles)
- Structured abstract provided for an original article
- Key words provided (three or more)
- Introduction of 75-100 words
- Headings in title case (not ALL CAPITALS)
- References cited in square brackets
- References according to the journal’s instructions, punctuation marks checked
Language and grammar
- Uniformly American or British English
- Abbreviations spelt out in full for the first time
- Numerals from 1 to 10 spelt out
- Numerals at the beginning of the sentence spelt out
Tables and figures
- No repetition of data in tables and graphs and in text
- Actual numbers from which graphs drawn, provided
- Figures necessary and of good quality (color)
- Table and figure numbers in Arabic letters (not Roman)
- Labels pasted on back of the photographs (no names written)
- Figure legends provided (not more than 40 words)
- Patients’ privacy maintained (if not permission taken)
- Credit note for borrowed figures/tables provided
Authors are invited to submit their manuscripts electronically through the online from https://www.neuropharmac.com/submission/
Each manuscript will be provided with a manuscript ID and all correspondence is done through e-mail. Please always mention the manuscript ID for any further inquiries.
Article Processing Charges (APC)
Its Free, NeuroPharmac Journal NEVER charges any Article Processing Charges from Authors.