Kindly read this document and sign your name at the space indicated at the end. Signed copy of the Agreement must be submitted along with the manuscript. No submission will be entertained for review in the absence of the said agreement.
1. Authors can submit original research articles, opinion and/or reviews.
2. If an article or review being submitted has already been published or is under review by another journal for publishing, it is the responsibility of the author to inform the editor of this journal about it.
3. Breach of ethics of publication (e.g. plagiarism) will be dealt with strictly.
4. Authors should disclose financial or any other conflicts of interest.
5. If authors wish to submit supplementary files that relate to an article (e.g., data-sets, research instruments, etc.) for publishing, they are welcome to submit them with their article.
6. When available, the URLs to access references online should be provided, including those for open access versions of the reference. The URLs are ready to click (e.g., http://pkp.sfu.ca).
7. The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
MANUSCRIPT SECTIONS FOR PAPERS: Manuscripts submitted for research and review articles in the respective journal should be divided into the following sections:
Conflict of Interest
Figures/Illustrations (if any)
Tables (if any)
Title: The title of the article should be precise and brief and must not be more than 120 characters.
- Authors should avoid the use of non-standard abbreviations.
- The title must be written in title case except for articles, conjunctions and prepositions.
- Authors should also provide a short 'running title with no more than 80 characters'.
- Title, running title, byline, correspondent footnote, and keywords should be written as presented in the original manuscript.
- Title Page: Title page should include paper title, author(s) full name and affiliation, corresponding author(s) names and complete affiliation/address, along with phone, fax and email.
Structured Abstract: The abstract of an article should be its clear, concise and accurate summary, having no more than 350 words, and including the explicit sub-headings (as in-line or run-in headings in bold).
- Use of abbreviations should be avoided and the references should not be cited in the abstract.
- Ideally, each abstract should include the following sub-headings, but these may vary according to requirements of the article.
- Conclusion Keywords: 6 to 8 keywords must be provided.
- Text Organization: The main text should begin on a separate page and should be divided into title page, abstract and the main text. The text may be subdivided further according to the areas to be discussed, which should be followed by the Acknowledgements and Reference sections. For Research Articles, the manuscript should begin with the title page and abstract followed by the main text, which must be structured into separate sections as Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Conflict of Interest, Acknowledgements and References. The Review Article should mention any previous important recent and old reviews in the field and contain a comprehensive discussion starting with the general background of the field. It should then go on to discuss the salient features of recent developments. The authors should avoid presenting material which has already been published in a previous review.
The authors are advised to present and discuss their observations in brief. The manuscript style must be uniform throughout the text and 10 pt Times New Roman fonts should be used. The full term for an abbreviation should precede its first appearance in the text unless it is a standard unit of measurement. The reference numbers should be given in square brackets in the text. Italics should be used for Binomial names of organisms (Genus and Species), for emphasis and for unfamiliar words or phrases. Non-assimilated words from Latin or other languages should also be italicized e.g. per se, et al. etc..
SECTION HEADINGS: Section headings should be numbered sequentially, left aligned and have the first letter capitalized, starting with the introduction. Sub-section headings however, should be in lower-case and italicized with their initials capitalized. They should be numbered as 1.1, 1.2, etc.
INTRODUCTION: The Introduction section should include the background and aims of the research in a comprehensive manner.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This section provides details of the methodology used along with information on any previous efforts with corresponding references. Any details for further modifications and research should be included.
RESULTS: Results should be precise.
DISCUSSION: This should explore the significance of the results of the work, and present reproducible procedure. Extensive citations and discussion of published literature should be avoided. The Results and discussions may be presented individually or combined in a single section with short and informative headings.
CONCLUSION: A small paragraph summarizing the contents of the article, presenting the final outcome of the research or proposing further study on the subject, may be given at the end of the article under the Conclusion section. Standard Protocol on Approvals, Registrations, Patient Consents & Animal Protection: All clinical investigations must be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki principles. Authors must comply with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org) with regard to the patientâ€™s consent for research or participation in a study. Patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers must not be mentioned anywhere in the manuscript (including figures). Editors may request that authors provide documentation of the formal review and recommendation from the institutional review board or ethics committee responsible for oversight of the study. In addition to the standard patient consent for participation in research, authors are responsible for obtaining patient consent-to-disclose forms for all recognizable patients in photographs, videos, or other information that may be published in the Journal, in derivative works, or on the journalâ€™s web site and for providing the manuscript to the recognizable patient for review before submission. The consent-to-disclose form should indicate specific use (publication in the medical literature in print and online, with the understanding that patients and the public will have access) of the patient's information and any images in figures or videos, and must contain the patient's signature or that of a legal guardian along with a statement that the patient or legal guardian has been offered the opportunity to review the identifying materials and the accompanying manuscript. For research involving animals, the authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the standards set forth in the eighth edition of Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals_prepub.pdf published by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.). Consent for Publication: If the manuscript has an individual data, such as personal detail, audio-video material etc., consent should be obtained from that individual. In case of children, consent should be obtained from the parent or the legal guardian. A specific declaration of such approval and consent-to-disclose form must be made in the copyright letter and in a stand-alone paragraph at the end of the article especially in the case of human studies where inclusion of a statement regarding obtaining the written informed consent from each subject or subject's guardian is a must. The original should be retained by the guarantor or corresponding author. Editors may request to provide the original forms by fax or email. All such case reports should be followed by a proper consent prior to publishing. Conflict of Interest: Financial contributions and any potential conflict of interest must be clearly acknowledged under the heading "Conflict of Interest". Authors must list the source(s) of funding for the study. This should be done for each author.
References: References must be listed in the numerical system (Vancouver). All references should be numbered sequentially [in square brackets] in the text and listed in the same numerical order in the reference section. The reference numbers must be finalized and the bibliography must be fully formatted before submission. See below few examples of references listed in the correct Vancouver style:
Typical Paper Reference:
1. Hedberg A, Ehrenberg A. Resolution enhancement of ESR spectra from irradiated single crystals of glycine. J Chem Phys 1968; 48: 4822-8. 2. Kaczynski R, Grabowska-Olszewska B. Soil mechanics of the potentially expansive clays in Poland. Appl Clay Sci 1997; 11: 337-55.
Typical Chapter Reference:
3. Piecuch P, Wloch M, Varandas AJC. Renormalized coupled cluster methods: Theoretical foundations and application to potential function of water. In: Lahmar S, Maruani J, Wilson S, Delgado-Barrio G, Eds. Progress in theoretical chemistry and physics, Springer, Berlin 2007; vol. 16: pp. 65-133. Book Reference:
4. Abramowitz M, Stegun I. Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover: New York 1965. Edited Book: 5. Ibach H, Mills DL, Eds. Electron energy loss spectroscopy and surface vibrations. Academic Press: New York 1982. Conference Proceedings: 6. Leigh C, Androula N, Vitali P. Physica Status Solidi (A): Proceedings of the 3rd international conference porous semiconductors - science and technology; May 2003; WILEY VCH Verlag, Berlin, GmbH, Germany 2003. Journal Article on the Internet:
7. Zhang X, Zhang ZL, Glotzer SC. Simulation study of cyclic tethered nanocube self-assemblies: effect of tethered nanocube architectures. Nanotechnology . 21 March 2007, 18(11): Available from: stacks.iop.org/Nano/18/115706 Some important points to remember:
References must be complete and accurate.
Date of access should be provided for online citations.
Journal names should be abbreviated according to the Index Medicus/MEDLINE. If the number of authors exceeds six then et al. will be used after three names (the term et al. should be in italics). Punctuation should be properly applied as mentioned in the examples given above. Avoid using superscript in the in-text citations and reference section. Abstracts, unpublished data and personal communications (which can only be included if prior permission has been obtained) should not be given in the references section. The details may however appear in the footnotes. Tables: Each table should include a title/caption being explanatory itself with respect to the details discussed in the table. Detailed legends may then follow. Table number in bold font i.e. Table 1, should follow a title. The title should be in small case with the first letter in caps. A full stop should be placed at the end of the title. Tables should be embedded in the text exactly according to their appropriate placement in the submitted manuscript. Columns and rows of data should be made visibly distinct by ensuring that the borders of each cell are displayed as black lines.
AUTHORS AND INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS: The names of the authors should be provided according to the previous citations or as the authors would want them to be published along with the institutional affiliations, current address, telephone, cell & fax numbers and the email address. Email address must be provided with an asterisk in front of the name of the principal author. The corresponding author(s) should be designated and their complete address, business telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address must be stated to receive correspondence and galley proofs.
PLAGIARISM PREVENTION: JHIDC uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. iThenticate software checks content against a database of periodicals, the Internet, and a comprehensive article database. It generates a similarity report, highlighting the percentage overlap between the uploaded article and the published material. Any instance of content overlap is further scrutinized for suspected plagiarism according to the publisher's Editorial Policies. JHIDC allows an overall similarity of 20% for a manuscript to be considered for publication.
- Types of Plagiarism: We all know that scholarly manuscripts are written after thorough review of previously published articles. It is therefore not easy to draw a clear boundary between legitimate representation and plagiarism. However, the following important features can assist in identifying different kinds of plagiarized content. These are: Reproduction of others words, sentences, ideas or findings as one's own without proper acknowledgement.
- Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism. It is an author's use of a previous publication in another paper without proper citation and acknowledgement of the original source. Paraphrasing poorly: Copying complete paragraphs and modifying a few words without changing the structure of original sentences or changing the sentence structure but not the words. Verbatim copying of text without putting quotation marks and not acknowledging the work of the original author. Properly citing a work but poorly paraphrasing the original text is considered as unintentional plagiarism. Similarly, manuscripts with language somewhere between paraphrasing and quoting are not acceptable. Authors should either paraphrase properly or quote and in both cases, cite the original source.
- Higher similarity in the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, and discussion and conclusion sections indicates that the manuscript may contain plagiarized text. Authors can easily explain these parts of the manuscript in many ways. However, technical terms and sometimes standard procedures cannot be rephrased; therefore Editors must review these sections carefully before making a decision. Plagiarism in Published Manuscripts: Published manuscripts which are found to contain plagiarized text are retracted from the journal website after careful investigation and approval by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
- A "Retraction Note" as well as a link to the original article is published on the electronic version of the plagiarized manuscript and an addendum with retraction notification in the journal concerned.
Editorial review process: The Editor-in-Chief of the journal based on the potential of the topic and its suitability in the journal, decides whether the manuscript deserves to be sent for reviewing to the related reviewers. The process of acceptance and rejection can be with or without review by the invited reviewers or members of editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief has the discretion to reject the manuscript straight off even before sending it to the reviewers for reviewing. The journal and its editorial board fully adhere and comply to the policies and principles of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and this journal is a full member of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Peer Review Process: JHIDC peer review process follows the subsequent steps to ensure that all submitted articles/papers are thoroughly reviewed prior its publication:
1. Submission of Paper
Authors submit the paper via an online system. In some cases, JHIDC may accept submission by email.
2. Editor-in-Chief Appraisal and Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the Author’s Guidelines to make sure that it includes the required sections and stylization; and the paper’s appropriateness for the journal whether or not it is sufficiently interesting. Both the quality and the originality of the paper are assessed at this point. Should the paper fail this process, it may be rejected without further review.
3. Selection and Invitation of Reviewer(s)
Handling editor sends invitation to relevant reviewers. Selection of reviewers is done according to article type and the reviewer’s availability. Reviewer(s) consider the invitation against their own expertise and conflicts of interest, then they either accept or decline. In most cases, when reviewers decline, they suggest alternative reviewers.
4. Review Proper
Reviewers are given time to review the paper. It usually takes weeks to months to review specific papers, depending on their initial impression of the work. If major problems are found during the initial stages, the review may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work, otherwise, they may read the paper several times, to build a detailed point-by-point review. The reviewer then submits to the journal, with a recommendation to whether accept, reject, or request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered. In cases when major revision is requested, the reviewer may expect a new set of submission. Handling editors in most cases handle the follow-up for minor revision.
5. Editor-in-Chief Evaluation of Review
At this point, the handling editor evaluates the returned review before making an overall decision. If the review differs widely, the handling editor will communicate with the Editor-in-Chief and may opt to invite additional review to get an extra opinion before coming up with a final decision.
6. Communication of Decision
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.
Authors retain copyright of the submission while granting the journal the right to publish it in the journal and in print.