Instructions to Authors
Submission of Manuscripts. Papers should be submitted online via URL: www.archrazi.com. Submission of a manuscript to Archives of Razi Institute implies that (a) it has not previously been published, (b) that is not being submitted for publication elsewhere. The Manuscript should be submitted in English as Ms-Word.
Text: All citations in the text should refer to as follow:
1. Single author: the author's name (without initials, unless there is ambiguity) and the year of publication; (Smith, 2010)
2. Two authors: both authors' names and the year of publication; (Smith and James, 2010)
3. Three or more authors: first author's name followed by 'et al.' and the year of publication. Citations may be made directly (or parenthetically). Groups of references should be listed first alphabetically, then chronologically. (Smith et al., 2010)
Examples: 'as demonstrated (Allan, 2000a, 2000b, 1999; Allan and Jones, 1999). Kramer et al. (2010) have recently shown ....'
List: References should be arranged first alphabetically and then further sorted chronologically if necessary. More than one reference from the same author(s) in the same year must be identified by the letters 'a', 'b', 'c', etc., placed after the year of publication.
If a reference has more than six authors, list the first six authors followed by et al.
Reference to a journal publication:
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., 2010. The art of writing a scientific article. J Sci Commun 163, 51–59.
Reference to a book:
Strunk, Jr.W., White, E.B., 2000. The Elements of Style, fourth ed. Longman, New York.
Reference to a chapter in an edited book:
Mettam, G.R., Adams, L.B., 2009. How to prepare an electronic version of your article, in: Jones, B.S., Smith , R.Z. (Eds.), Introduction to the Electronic Age. E-Publishing Inc., New York, pp. 281–304.
References in other languages should be written English, then put the name of languages in front of the References in the Bracket.
Example: Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., Mettam, G.R., Adams, L.B., White, E.B., et al., 2010. The art of writing a scientific article. J Sci Commun 163, 51–59. ["Name of the Language"]
As a minimum, the full URL should be given and the date when the reference was last accessed. Any further information, if known (DOI, author names, dates, reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given. Web references can be listed separately (e.g., after the reference list) under a different heading if desired, or can be included in the reference list.
Attention: To find the correct abbreviated name of the journals name for inclusion in the bibliography list please refer to: http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS54B7/help/WOS/D_abrvjt.html
The content of the paper must justify its length. For reports of original investigative work, traditional division into sections is required: Title, Keywords, Addresses and which author address for correspondence, Structured Abstract, Introduction, Objectives, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, References and Acknowledgements, Legends for display items (Figures and Tables).
Research articles should contain 2500 - 3500 words, maximum number of references is 25, and maximum Number of illustrations/Tables is 5.
Review Articles should contain 3500 - 4000 words, maximum number of references is 50, a maximum number of illustrations/Tables is 5. In a review article both abstract and text of the manuscript, include following items:
1) Context: Include 1 or 2 sentences describing the clinical question or issue and its importance in clinical practice or public health.
2) Evidence Acquisition: Describe the data sources used, including the search strategies, years searched, and other sources of material, such as subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. Explain the methods used for quality assessment and the inclusion of identified articles.
3) Results: Address the major findings of the review of the clinical issue or topic in an evidence-based, objective, and balanced fashion, emphasizing the highest-quality evidence available.
4) Conclusions: Clearly state the conclusions to answer the questions posed if applicable, basing the conclusions on available evidence, and emphasize how clinicians should apply current knowledge.
Brief Reports should contain 1000 - 2000 words with an abstract of 200 words maximum. Short reports should comprise sections of Introduction, Objectives, Materials & Methods, Results, and Discussion with not more than 2 tables or figures and up to 20 references.
A Technical Note is a report on a new method, technique or procedure falling within the scope of Archives of Razi Institute Journal. It may involve a new algorithm, computer program (e.g. for statistical analysis or for simulation), or testing method for example. The Technical Note should be used for information that cannot adequately incorporated into and Original Research Article, but that is of sufficient value to be brought to the attention of the readers of Archives of Razi. The note should describe the nature of the new method, technique or procedure and clarify how it differs from those currently in use. It should not occupy more than 4 Journal pages. Technical note structure: 1) Abstract containing a brief description about the newly developed method/procedure, it should not exceed more than 200 words, 2) Introduction, 3) Protocol, 4) Representative Results, 5) Discussion. It is strongly suggested that the manuscript submitted with a video file as the supplementary file.
Authors & Affiliations
Author(s): full name of all authors should be mentioned.
Method: [First Name] [Middle Name] [Last Name]
Example: Marek Jan Brensht
Affiliation: Author's affiliation contains only department and university not author's degree or position.
Method: [name of department], [name of university], [city], [country]
Example: Molecular Biology Department, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Corresponding author: one of the authors should be picked out for possible correspondence before and after publication. Their address, telephone and fax number and email should be written.
[Name of Recipient]
[Full Postal Address]
Tel: [country code] [city code] [Phone Number]
fax: [country code] [city code] [Phone Number]
Petersbon Street 2c, 6432 GC, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 22 1234566
Fax: +31 22 1234566
An abstract of 250-350 words should be provided to state the reason for the study, the main findings, and the conclusions drawn from the observation. Abstract of original articles and brief reports should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. Since an abstract is often presented separately from the article, it must be able to stand alone. For this reason, references should generally be avoided, but if essential, they must be cited in full, without reference to the reference list. Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if their use is essential, they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.
A list of 3-10 keywords must be provided for indexing purposes. All keywords should be provided according to MeSH terms at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html. Note that the preferred expression is indicated by the label "MeSH Heading" and not "Entry Term." The desired terms may then be copied from the MeSH Browser. Another way of finding appropriate headings is to search PubMed to find articles on similar topics and review the MeSH headings assigned to those articles. To read more about Keywords refer here.
To send electronically, manuscripts should be in Word Document (Microsoft Word 97, 2003, 2007). Manuscripts, well-written in English, should follow the style of the agreement detailed in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, a copy of which can be found at www.icmje.org. Please double check the article for spelling, structure and format mistakes.
The rest of the article differs according to the article type you are submitting but generally includes the following headings: Introduction, Objectives, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and References.
This should summarize the purpose and the rationale for the study. It should neither review the subject extensively nor should it have data or conclusions of the study.
This should include an exact method or observation or experiment. If an apparatus is used, its manufacturer's name and address should be given in parenthesis. If the method is established, give the reference but if the method is new, give enough information so that another author is able to perform it. If a drug is used, its generic name, dose, and route of administration must be given. A statistical method must be mentioned and specify any general computer program used. The Info system used should be clearly mentioned.
It must be presented in the form of text, tables, and illustrations. The contents of the tables should not be all repeated in the text. Instead, a reference to the table number may be given. Long articles may need subheadings within some sections (especially the Results and Discussion parts) to clarify their contents.
This should emphasize the present findings and the variations or similarities with other work done in the field by other workers. The detailed data should not be repeated in the discussion again. Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that follow from them. It must be mentioned whether the hypothesis mentioned in the article is true, false or no conclusions can be derived.
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be covered in the acknowledgment section. It should include persons who provided technical help, writing assistance and departmental head that only provided general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
All tables must be included at the end of the manuscript.
Tables in the word file should be separated by page break (each table in a separate page).
Each Table should have borders with normal style without any colored row or column.
The style of table should be simple.
Each cell contains only one paragraph or one line.
(Figures must be submitted as separate files)
Authors should declare in the cover letter that all figures of their manuscripts are original, otherwise the original source of figures should be mentioned and reprint form must be uploaded in the attachments.
Scanned graph from other resources will not be accepted to publish.
All Figures should be in the form of encapsulated postscript (.eps), power point (.ppt), portable document format (.pdf), Photoshop (.psd), TIF (.tiff), PNG (png) or JPG (.jpg).
The raw data of the charts should be uploaded in Microsoft Excel format (MS Office 1997-2003)
Please scan all images in at least 300dpi. Most consumer scanners scan in sRGB by default. However, if you are using a high-end scanner then Adobe RGB is recommended for optimum color depth. Colorspace should be in RGB.
Image quality specification for Line art (an image composed of lines and text which does not contain tonal or shaded areas) has the resolution of 900 dpi, halftone (a continuous tone photograph which contains no text) with 300 dpi and a combination of both should have 500 dpi of resolution. We will NOT accept any images with the resolution below 300 dpi.
More information about file specifications can be seen at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/PMC_Filespec.html#Image_File_Requirements
Internationally accepted units (International System of Units), symbols, and abbreviations must be used. Abbreviations should be used sparingly and must be introduced in parentheses upon the first mention. Abbreviations that have meaning only within the context of the specific manuscript should be avoided.
Should apply for all manuscript submissions, including letters to the editor, opinion pieces, informal essays, and book reviews.
Authors are expected to provide detailed information about any relevant financial interests or financial conflicts within the past 5 years and for the foreseeable future.
Many universities and other institutions and organizations have established policies and thresholds for reporting financial interests and other conflicts of interest
Authors who have no relevant financial interests are asked to provide a statement indicating that they have no financial interests related to the material in the manuscript.
Dr de Lemos reported receiving research grants and honoraria and consulting fees for speaking from Biosite and Roche. Dr Blazing reported receiving honoraria from Merck and Pfizer.
Detailed information regarding all financial and material support for the research and work
Not limited to grant support, funding sources, and provision of equipment and supplies.
Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by grant CA34988 from the National Institutes of Health and by a teaching and research scholarship from the American College of Physicians (Dr Fischl).
We ask authors to describe what each author contributed, and these contributions to the work may be published at the editor's discretion.
Example: Author Contributions: Study concept and design: Fortes, Melchi, and Abeni. Analysis and interpretation of data: Fortes, Mastroeni, and Leffondre. Drafting of the manuscript: Fortes. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mastroeni, Leffondre, Sampogna, Melchi, Mazzotti, Pasquini, and Abeni. Statistical analysis: Fortes and Mastoeni.
Yoon Kong Loke developed the original idea and the protocol, abstracted and analyzed data, wrote the manuscript, and is guarantor. Deirdre Price and Sheena Derry contributed to the development of the protocol, abstracted data, and prepared the manuscript.
How to write?
Please clarify and write who was responsible for:
1- Study concept and design:
2- Acquisition of data:
3- Analysis and interpretation of data:
4- Drafting of the manuscript:
5- Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:
6- Statistical analysis:
7- Administrative, technical, and material support:
8- Study supervision:
The specific role of the funding organization or sponsor in:
Design and conduct of the study Collection,
Analysis of the data
Preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript
Role of the Sponsor: The funding organizations are public institutions and had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, and analysis of the data; or preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript. The Utah and Missouri health departments provided practical support for the focus group and survey processes, including letters of endorsement, hospital contact information, and assistance with logistic arrangements for focus group sessions.
All authors should study and agree with the terms below;
Authors / Ethics and Disclosure
On behalf of all co-authors, I hereby confirm that I have reviewed and complied with the relevant Instructions to Authors, the Ethics in Publishing policy and Conflicts of Interest disclosure.
Please Note: Once submitted the manuscript cannot be withdrawn or sent elsewhere. The editors reserve the right to edit, shorten, modify or reject submitted manuscripts even after provisional acceptance. This may be based on English grammar, clarity, space limitations, journal style or preference of the editors . The editors may opt not to disclose the reason for rejection of a manuscript. The editor, editorial team or publisher will not be held liable or hold responsiblity for any shortcomings or mistakes in published manuscripts with regard to contents disclosed therein including but not limited to drug dosage, methodology, surgical technique, etc. Medical ethics guideline issues are the responsibility of the authors (patient identity disclosure, research ethics, etc). Statements and opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the individual contributors and not necessarily those of the editors or publisher. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the published articles. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any damage or injury to persons or property arising from the use of any materials, instructions, methods or ideas contained in the articles.
The article I have submitted to the journal for review is original, has been written by the stated authors and has not been published elsewhere.
The article is not currently being considered for publication by any other journal and will not be submitted for such review while under review by this journal.
The article contains no libellous or other unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that violate any personal or proprietary rights of any other person or entity.
I have obtained written permission from copyright owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources in my article.
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, I have informed the co-author(s) of the terms of this publishing agreement and that I am signing on their behalf as their agent, and I am authorized to do so.
RIGHTS FOR SCHOLARLY USE
I understand that I am hereby granted (without the need to obtain further permission) rights to use certain versions of the article, as described and defined below:
Internal Institutional Use: Use by the author's institution for classroom teaching at the institution (including distribution of copies, paper or electronic, and use in coursepacks and courseware programs) for scholarly purposes. For authors employed by companies, the use by that company for internal training purposes.
Personal Use: Use by an author in the author's classroom teaching (including distribution of copies, paper or electronic), distribution of copies to research colleagues for their personal use, use in a subsequent compilation of the author's works, inclusion in a thesis or dissertation, preparation of other derivative works such as extending the article to book-length form, or otherwise using or re-using portions or excerpts in other works (with full acknowledgment of the original publication of the article).
Permitted Scholarly Posting: Voluntary posting of published article by an author on open Web sites for Commercial Use or Systematic Distribution is not permitted. Deposit in or posting to subject-oriented repositories (such as PubMed Central), or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings, is permitted only under specific agreements between the publisher and the repository, agency or institution, and only consistent with the Copyright Owner's policies concerning such repositories.
Manuscripts describing any experimental research on animals should include a statement of approval by the Ethical Committee of the institute where the work was done, mentioning that the study was carried out according to the legal requirements of the relevant local or national authority. Before papers describing animal studies are accepted for publication in the Archives of Razi Institute, the authors must convince the editors that the work conformed to appropriate ethical standards. The care and use of experimental animals should comply with Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute animal welfare guidelines and policies.
• It is essential that corresponding authors supply an email address to which correspondence can be emailed while their article is in production.
• Word files of edited articles may be sent for checking via email prior to typesetting. It is essential that these files are checked carefully. Full instructions on how to correct and return the file to the Publisher will be attached to the email.
• Electronic PDF proofs: Notification of the URL from where to download a PDF typeset page proof and further instructions will be sent by email to the corresponding author. The purpose of the PDF proof is a final check of the layout, and of tables and figures. Alterations other than the essential correction of errors are unacceptable at PDF proof stage. The proof should be checked, and approval to publish the article should be emailed to the Publisher by the manuscript ID indicated, otherwise, it may be signed off on by the Editor or held over to the next issue. Acrobat Reader will be required to read the PDF. This software can be downloaded free of charge from the following website: www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. Acrobat Reader will enable the file to be opened, read on screen and printed out in order for any corrections to be added.
Withdrawal Defenition: is an action that takes the manuscript out of the review process and places it back into the author's dashboard.
Our View Regarding Withdrawal
In General, we do not suggest article withdrawal, since it wastes valuable manuscript processing time, money and works invested by the publisher.
Pre-Review: is a period that an author(s) submit(s) her/his article until to be sent for review.
Peer-Review: is a period that manuscript submitted completely into the website and included in the review process.
Review – Final Decision: is a period from the acceptance of an article until to be sent for publication if the article meets the journal standards.
Post-Publication: when a paper is published (online and/or hard copy).
Pre-Review: The author(s) can withdraw their papers at this step without paying any charges and/or posing compelling reasons.
Peer-Review: The authors must have compelling reasons, if not, the author will not be allowed to submit a paper in future for a period of five years.
Review – Final Decision: The authors must have compelling reasons if not, the author will not be allowed to submit a paper in future for a period of five years.
Post-Publication: Withdrawing at this step is not possible at all.
What Are Compelling Reasons?
bogus claims of authorship
fraudulent use of data or the like
Infringements of professional ethical codes
A retraction is a public statement made about an earlier statement that is going to be removed from the journal. The retraction may be initiated by the editors of the journal, or by the author(s) of the paper. However, since responsibility for the journal’s content rests with the editor, s/he should always have the final decision about retracting material. Journal editors may retract publications even if all or some of the authors refuse to retract the publication themselves.
When should a publication be retracted?
Only published items can be retracted. Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the journal editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed and misleading (or is redundant or plagiarized).
What Are Compelling Reasons?
Bogus claims of authorship
Fraudulent use of data
Infringements of professional ethical codes
Failure to disclose a major competing interest
Should retraction be applied in cases of disputed authorship?
Authors sometimes request that articles are retracted when authorship is disputed after publication. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings or the reliability of the data it is not appropriate to retract a publication solely on the grounds of an authorship dispute. In such cases, the journal editor should inform those involved in the dispute that s/he cannot adjudicate in such cases but will be willing to publish a correction to the author/contributor list if the authors/contributors (or their institutions) provide appropriate proof that such a change is justified.
Article Retraction Process
A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in the paginated part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.
In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.
The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the .pdf indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”
The HTML version of the document is removed.
Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retraction Guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Sep 2009. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf
We accept all terms and conditions of COPE about plagiarism and in case, any attempt of plagiarism is brought to our attention accompanied with convincing evidence, we act based on flowcharts and workflows determined in COPE.
All submissions will be checked with iTheticate software in 2 stages: New Submission and After Acceptance from the editorial boards.
Republishing is a case of Plagiarism in our Journals
Our journals explicitly instruct authors not to submit papers or variations of papers on studies that have already been published elsewhere even in other languages than English. Especially those articles which are published in local journals (with local languages) are not permitted to be submitted in our journals.
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles are published by this journal, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.
Section A: Publication and authorship
All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Associate Editors and Editor in Chief. Author also can propose reviewers for some journals and article types.
The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity and language.
The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revision or rejection.
If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
No research can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal or in another journal.
Section B: Authors' responsibilities
Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Level of their contribution also must be defined in the “Authors’ Contributions” section of the article.
Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.
Section C: Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Section D: Editorial responsibilities
Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).
Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.