Editor Guidelines

Editors are primarily responsible to maintain the reputation and the integrity of the journal.

Processing of the Manuscripts

1. Initial submission of the manuscript by the corresponding author

2. Registration of the manuscript details and generation of the manuscript number

3. Responding to the author with the receipt and acknowledgement within two days

4. Verification of compliance with the scope of the Journal

5. The Editor-in-Chief sends the manuscript to the editorial manager

6. Determination of the article type: Review, Research, Short Communication, Case report, survey study, expert opinion, letter to the Editor

7. Preliminary quality evaluation of the article. Non-duplicity(Plagiarism checking) and originality

8. Screening for potential and active reviewers and assignment to the reviewers

9. The Managing Editor screens for at least three independent reviewers

10. Securing the review comments within  two week time frame

11. Upon the receipt of reviewer comments in the system, the Managing Editor can either make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviews and his/her own opinion, or start a discussion among the reviewers if there is some disagreement. The discussion involves all reviewers, the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.

12. Based on the review comments, final decision (Accept/Re-review/Minor revision/Major revision/rejection) is taken in consultation with the editorial board and editor in chief. Final disposition of the manuscript would be any one of the following:
Accepted: Can be published as it is for the time being with minor error or artifacts.
Accept with minor revision: The manuscript will have to be slightly revised following the reviewers' comments, but there will not be any additional round of review. The Editor and/or the Editor in Chief are responsible for verifying the implementation of modifications.
Revise and resubmit: It is agreed that the topic is worth publishing, but the paper requires major revisions before it can actually be published. The revised paper will not be considered as a completely new submission, though: if a revised version is sent, it will most probably be handled by the same Editor.
Rejected: The paper is out of scope, or does not contain any substantial contribution, or may be simply too difficult to understand. In any case, the same work should not be resubmitted without substantial improvisation.

13. After an agreed decision has been reached, the authors are notified by the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor

14. Copy editing of the manuscript and generation of the Author-proof

15. Hosting on the website with volume and issue number and year of publication

16. Archiving of the article in the database

• Editor’s decisions are final related to acceptance or rejection of the article for publication upon receiving the review comments.
• Editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without any bias towards race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
• Editor or any Editorial staff should maintain confidentiality related to the submitted manuscript, names and affiliations of the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate depending on the need and stage of processing.
• Editor must ensure that the content and the author information present in the manuscript should be legible.
• Must evaluate the manuscript whether or not it is falling within the scope of the journal.
• Must maintain the integrity of the journal by suggesting the corrections, dealing with retraction, supplemental data etc.
• Taking efforts to attract recent and relevant research to cater to its reader’s interest.
• Should take steps to discourage unethical practices like plagiarism and violation of copyrights.
• Should take measures to promote discussion and debate on prominent scientific developments and its implications on the society
• Editor should maintain a bird’s eye view on avoiding erroneous information. On identifying the error, editor must take measures to rectify it immediately by publishing addendum.
• Editor must comply with the policy guidelines provided by the publisher related to reviewing and editorial policy.
• Editors must closely monitor the journal for ensuring the fairness, timeliness, thoroughness, and civility of the process.
• Editor is responsible for the overall growth and progress of the journal; hence he/she is responsible for the timely release of the issue.
• Editor takes measures to add all the significant developments in the field for the growth of the journal.
• Can discuss the controversies also to clear the doubts centering particular scientific phenomena or practice.

Author Guidelines for Manuscript Preparation

Articles Categories

Research Article: A research article is a primary source. It reports the original study performed by the authors. A Results and Discussion section describes the outcomes of the data analysis. Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included followed by conclusion and References. The word limit for a research article should be 1500-6000. Each article should possess a section “Conflict of Interest”.

Review Articles: A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic. A review article surveys and summarizes previously published studies, rather than reporting new facts or analysis. The preferable word count for review article should be 2500-9500. Review articles must explain:

• Recent major advances and discoveries
• Significant gaps in the research
• Current debates
• Ideas of where research might go next

Case Reports: Case reports are professional narratives that provide feedback on clinical practice guidelines and offer a framework for early signals of effectiveness and adverse events. They can be shared for medical, scientific, or educational purposes. It is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. The word count for the case report will be 1000-2000. Case studies without proper discussion are not accepted for publication.

Commentaries/Perspectives: Perspective, opinion, and commentary articles are scholarly articles which express a personal opinion or a new perspective about existing research on a particular topic. The word limit for the Commentaries/perspectives should not be more then 1000-1800.

Editorials: Editorials are expert opinions on a specific field where the specialist is able to predict and analyze the future trends based on the current developments. Editorials are generally written by senior scientists, distinguished academicians and noble laureates that have extensive command over the field. The word limit for the editorials should not be more than 900-1200. Short Communication Short Communication is a description, viewpoints, and observations of the author referring facts, findings from other studies and writes a critical and brief analysis that would not exceed 500-1000 words.

Letters to the Editors: Letters to the Editors are reader’s views, opinions, comments, suggestions on various articles published in the journal. Often ‘Letters to the Editor’ elaborate, question, analyze and add value to the study. Letters to the Editors should not exceed 500-1000 words.

Disputes: All the disputes related to copyright violation and scientific misconduct will be thoroughly examined and if proved guilty, the Editor in Chief can reject or blacklist the author/ writings.

Manuscript Submission

Publisher follows a prescribed set of article types with a specific format for manuscript. Type the entire manuscript, including figure legends, tables, and references, in font 12, in Times New Roman, double-spaced using Microsoft Word. Leave 1-inch margins on all sides. Manuscripts should be written succinctly and should cite select references that are directly relevant. For guidance on length of each article, see section on article types below.

Covering Letter

Covering Letter is declaration of the corresponding author stating that the manuscript is original in all aspects and it is not published or under consideration for publication with any other publisher. The declaration must also include a statement that the study did not violate any national or international laws on human, animal and environmental rights. All the other authors that have contributed for the study are bound to obey the declaration signed by the corresponding author.

Title page

The title page must display the complete title of the study reflecting its overall objective followed by the complete list of all authors’ with their full names, affiliations; an abbreviated title for the running head (not to exceed 50 characters, including spaces); name and address of corresponding author, contact telephone, fax number, and e-mail address. Where necessary, identify each author’s affiliation by superscript numbers matched to the appropriate institution. The subsequent pages furnish and unfold the study. The manuscript must be clearly demarcated with the sub-headings, stated in Arabic numbers. Each and every page of the manuscript must be thoroughly numbered on top right corner of the page.

Abstract and Keywords

The manuscript must begin with an abstract of not more than 200 words that captures the entire summary of the study, including its scope, methodology, findings, conclusion and limitations. At least five important terminologies reflecting the theme of the manuscript must be placed as keywords at the end of the abstract.

Introduction

All the manuscripts must start with an introduction to begin with, which sets the tone and the foundation for the study. Introduction provides basic information of the study by referring similar such studies elsewhere. Introduction briefly discusses various key aspects of the study, raising valid and important questions, which may be answered subsequently as the study progresses.

Methods and Materials

Methods and materials section discusses the research methods deployed to conduct the study, including the sample size and technique. It also discusses the tools used for the data collection, and interpretation.

Results

The author draws various conclusions by analyzing the information extracted by analyzing the data elicited from the study. These are findings that the author/s would get at the end, may or may not coincide with the hypothesis set by the author/s at the beginning of the study.

Discussion and Analysis

The collected information is analyzed statistically by applying various relevant formulas that are universally acceptable and the data is analyzed to produce observations and statements that are backed by valid evidences. This part of the manuscript generally represents tables, graphs, diagrams, charts that reinforce the values and information discussed in the manuscript as text.

Tables, Figures, Graphs and Diagrams

All the tables, graphs, diagrams and images provided in the text must have captions and legends, indicating their appropriate location in the manuscript. All the tables must be presented in the numerical order in Excel format, charts and diagrams must be presented in excel/word format and the images, diagrams and pictures must be presented in jpeg format.

Conclusion

Conclusions are generally drawn from the findings that are summarized tat the end to draw valid findings of the study.

Limitations & Recommendations for Future Studies

Authors must define and state the limitations if any within the scope of the study and must clearly state it to avoid confusions. Authors must also suggest recommendations for future studies on this area.

References

This is an important part of the manuscript where author/s cites the source of the information referred in the manuscript to avoid copyright violation. The Advanced Practices in Nursing follows Chicago style of referencing. Author/s must carefully arrange the references as stated below.

For more details on Chicago reference style please refer to https://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/Chicago

Acknowledgements

Author/s must acknowledge all the persons, institutions, organizations and the funding agencies that are resourceful in conducting the study.

Conflict of Interest

Authors must clearly disclose commercial associations that might create a conflict of interest in connection with submitted manuscripts and must give credit to any ghostwriters involved in the writing of the manuscript. This statement should include appropriate information for EACH author, thereby representing that competing financial interests of all authors have been appropriately disclosed.

Appendix

Authors can share all the supplementary information that they could not share in the manuscript as appendix. Appendix also carries questionnaires, guidelines, and the universal standards followed in conducting studies involving animals.

Abbreviations

A bridged technical terms and jargons used in the study are expanded and must be placed at the end of the study for clear understanding of the readers.

 

Manuscript Guidelines

• Authors are encouraged to make use of the subject guide for selecting the most suitable journal of their choice for submitting their work.
• Authors can refer to the aims and scope as well as the journal keywords for refining their journal selection incase multiple journals within same subject domain are found.
• Adya Publications is an open access publisher and does not receive funding from any Institution/Government. Adya Publications operates on the processing charges that are received from the authors.
• The basic article processing fee is applicable based on the extent of editing, graphical effects, author proof preparation, etc.
• Same manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal simultaneously
• Must avoid text recycling in case of continuation or expansion of the previous research work.
• Authors need to ensure the originality of the data and images presented. Sourced information need to be adequately cited and acknowledged. Authors need to obtain permission from the copyright owners for any copyrighted work included and sources of the articles need to be accredited.
• Data and text sourced from previous publications cannot be reproduced as such
• Contributions to the research outcomes need to be acknowledged
• The authors need to ensure that they have contributed substantially to the research work and manuscript preparation with clear individual roles, collective responsibility and accountability.
• Authors are expected to make sufficient preparations to provide relevant raw data, supplementary information to verify the validity of the results.
• Ensure accurate presentation of research outcomes with high degree of professionalism
• Ensure the originality of the data and images presented. Sourced information need to be adequately cited and acknowledged.
• Data and text sourced from previous publications should not be reproduced as such.
• Contributions to the research outcomes need to be adequately acknowledged
• Ensure manuscript preparation with clear individual roles with collective responsibility and accountability.
• Authors are expected to provide relevant raw data, supplementary information to verify the validity of the results.
• Ensure compliance with ethical standards and disclose of the potential conflict of interest
• Obtain Institutional ethical committee approvals for the research involving animal study models or human subjects.
• Obtain informed consent in case of studies with human subjects.

Reviewer Guidelines

• We ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased (single blind review system-where reviewer recognizes author but author does not recognize reviewer) and timely.
• We express our sincere gratitude to all our reviewers for their long standing support, their effort and time in evaluating the manuscripts. The peer-review process converts the preliminary manuscript submission into a citable standard publication. It improves the scientific merit and presentation quality for better comprehension by wide range of readers.
• The potential and active reviewers are identified based on author suggestion and the bibliographical knowledge.
• The reviewers’ evaluations and comments play a crucial role in taking the final decision on the manuscript in consultation with the editors and considering multiple contributing factors such the relevance and impact of the research work. For this we adhere to the COPE guidelines. Reviewers can decline to comments if they find any conflict of interest with the manuscript.
• The reviewers are encouraged to be in contact with the assigning Editor. Sensitive issues such as conflict of interest, plagiarism, published data need to be submitted to the assigning Editor whereas the recommendations and critical evaluations regarding the content of the manuscript needs to be submitted to both the editor and the author.
• The process of review and recommendations are confidential since the unpublished manuscripts are classified in nature. Review needs to focus mainly on improving the scientific merit of the manuscript and needs to be very objective in nature.
• Personal criticism is strictly prohibited in the review comments. The review comments should have sufficient clarity with supporting references. Please include the strength, weakness, relevance and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the presentation.
• Finally the extent of suitability or likelihood of the publication of manuscript needs to be mentioned. The editor can forward the review comments to the other potential reviewers also in addition to the authors. Reviewer should not cite the unpublished manuscript.

• Ensuring conformation with the following points represent a standard review process:

• The title and content is within the scope of the journal.
• The information provided is relevant to the wide readership within the journal purview.
• All the sections within the manuscript such as title, abstract, key words, methods and conclusions are consistent with the objective of the paper. The controls included in the experimental work are rational and adequate.
• The writing is easy to comprehend without distractions and deviations.
• The methodology is clear and easy to be repeated by another researcher.
• The methodology has consent and ethical approvals as and when appropriate and applicable. The analytical and statistical methods are appropriate and relevant to the study. The findings and conclusions are adequately supported by the data.
• The information is not repeated either in text, tables or figure. The references adequately represent the data and interpretations are up to date without missing on key citable information.
• With regard to the length of the manuscript, the suggestions with precise comments can be made for either expanding, condensing, merging or deleting the content.

• Reviewers’ role

  Peer-review enhances the quality of the manuscript. Peer reviewers provide a valuable service to the publishers and authors in improving the literature in the specific discipline by volunteering their time, expert analysis and interpretations.

• Evaluate the scientific merit of the article and provide unbiased assessment of the manuscript in a timely manner
• Give their opinion on clarity, conciseness, relevance and significance of the manuscript
• Expected to provide constructive and informative critique of the manuscript Suggest the ways of improving the content presentation, originality and scope
• Ensuring that the methods are described with sufficient details with appropriate study design
• Ensuring that the manuscript includes the citations of the relevant previous work Uphold confidentiality, impartiality, integrity and timeliness while reviewing the manuscript Should avoid personal comments or criticism
• Estimating the manuscript rating and recommend whether to accept or to reject or suggest major revision or minor revision or to conclude with no recommendation.
  
  Has to notify and cease review when there is the possibility of conflict of interest.