· Specifies to which Journal the manuscript is being submitted· State in the letter that:· You wish to submit the manuscript for the consideration for publication in Bionatura journals;· The manuscript is being submitted by corresponding author on behalf of all authors;· It presents the original work of the authors;· Identical or similar work has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere;· All the authors made significant contribution to the study; and· All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.· Briefly summarizes why your paper is a worthy contribution to the scientific literature;· If the manuscript is presented at a meeting or conference, specify the complete name of the meeting, the city where it was held, and the exact date on which the paper was presented.· Relates your submission to previously published work;· Specifies the type of article you are submitting (see Article Types & Format);· The name of the corresponding author with contact address, contact phone number, email and fax number (if available) must be clearly listed.· The covering letter should be signed by the corresponding author on behalf of all authors.Please do not include requests to waive publication fees in your cover letter. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will have the opportunity to request a waiver then.
· First names (or initials, if used),· Middle names (or initials, if used), and· Last names (surname, family name)
· In approximately 100-300 words, you will need to summarize your findings and what the implications of those findings are.· The abstract must be accurate as a reflection of what is in your article.· Because abstracts are the only substantive portion of the article indexed in many electronic databases, and the only portion many readers read, authors need to be careful that abstracts reflect the content of the article accurately. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations.· Please do not include citations in your abstract and avoid the use of abbreviations, if possible and must be self-contained.· It is a good idea to include keywords in your abstract, as this will help readers to find it. Key phrases need to make sense within the abstract. Try to keep to a maximum of three or four different keyword phrases, and avoid over-repetition of such phrases as this can look like an attempt to trick a search engine, which may result in a page being rejected.· Check that the abstract reads well.· For papers reporting original research, state the primary objective and any hypothesis tested; describe the research design and your reasons for adopting that methodology; state the methods and procedures employed, state the main outcomes and results, and state the conclusions that might be drawn from these data and results, including their implications for further research or application/practice.· For review papers, state the primary objective of the review; the reasoning behind your literature selection; and the way you critically analyses the literature; state the main outcomes and results of your review; and state the conclusions that might be drawn, including their implications for further research or application/practice.
· Key words can be up to 6 which may include the species, variables tested, and the major response criteria. The first letter of each key word is lowercase (unless a proper noun); key words are separated by commas and presented in alphabetical order; and no abbreviations should be used. Key words will assist indexers in cross-indexing the article and may be published with the abstract.
· An "author" is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study, and biomedical authorship continues to have important academic, social, and financial implications.
· Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributor ship policy, as well as a policy on identifying who is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole.· While contributor ship and guarantor ship policies obviously remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, it leaves unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify for authorship.· Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published; and 4) agreement to act as guarantor of the work (ensuring that questions related to any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved). Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4.· When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict of interest disclosure forms. When submitting a group author manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and should clearly identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals will generally list other members of the group in the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the group name and the names of individuals the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript.· Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.· All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.· Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.· Increasingly, authorship of multi-center trials is attributed to a group. All members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the above criteria for authorship.· The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed.
· All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
· Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under a heading such as "clinical investigators" or "participating investigators," and their function or contribution should be described — for example, "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," or "provided and cared for study patients."· Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, all persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.
· In this section acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the study by making substantial contributions to conception, materials essential for the study, design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, or who was involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content, but who does not meet the criteria for authorship. In acknowledging the assistance of colleagues, it is expected that you will have obtained their permission to be named. If the text and/or figures are being reprinted with permission of an author or publisher, acknowledge them in this section.
· Funding sources should not be included in the acknowledgments, or anywhere in the manuscript file. You will provide this information during the manuscript submission process.
· In the past five years have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future? Is such an organization financing this manuscript (including the article-processing charge)? If so, please specify.
· Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future? If so, please specify· Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript? If so, please specify.· Do you have any other financial competing interests? If so, please specify.
· Are there any non-financial competing interests (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) to declare in relation to this manuscript? If so, please specify.· If you are unsure as to whether you, or one your co-authors, has a competing interest please discuss it with the editorial office.
· Published works, works accepted for publication, and citable datasets should appear in the reference list. Mentions of unpublished work should be cited parenthetically within the main text of the article as personal communications.· OA Text employees the name-year (or “Harvard”) system of in-text references, in which the author’s surname and year of publication are cited in the text of your work, enclosed in parentheses. References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text. Identify references in text, tables, and legends by Arabic numerals in parentheses. 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. Journals’ titles should be abbreviated following the ISI Journal Title Abbreviation List, but set in title case and italicized. The list can also be obtained through the Library's website.· Detailed information on formatting references can be found in our Reference Style Guide. We use Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (7th Edition, 2006) as our primary style guide and highly recommend that authors consult it.
· Figure S1.· Table S1.· Text S1.· Video S1.· Animation S1.· Alternative Language Abstract S1.
· Provide background that puts the manuscript into context and allows readers outside the field to understand the purpose and significance of the study· Define the problem addressed and why it is important· Include a brief review of the key literature· Reports of clinical research should, where appropriate, include a summary of a search of the literature to indicate why this study was necessary and what it aimed to contribute to the field· Note any relevant controversies or disagreements in the field· The section should end with a very brief statement of what is being reported in the article.· The main and secondary objectives should be made clear, and any pre-specified subgroup analysis should be described.· Give only strictly pertinent references and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.· Extensive discussion of relevant literature should be included in the discussion.
· Written by the Bionatura Text Editors, Associate Editors, or Invited Guest Editors on a variety of subjects of interest to the Journal readers· Typically shorter than one page
· Submitted by the Reader· Supports, refutes, or adds relevant information related to a previously published article· Authors correcting their own work or responding to a critique of their article by a reader(s)· An abstract is not required.· The letter should not be divided into sections.· The letter will undergo peer-review similar to other articles.
· Authors suggestion (scope is open to areas beyond science/technology)· Reviewers recommendation· Represents the “perspective” or “opinion” or “hypothesis” of the author(s)· Amount of original data is minimal, but corroborative literature data encouraged· Format: Does not follow the outline of Introduction, Materials/Methods, Discussion/Conclusions, and References
· Authors suggestion· Topic is relatively broad in scope· Review article should be on topic which is of interest to a wide readership.· Review articles should have a comprehensive coverage of a topic in clear and lucid language with representative figures and images.· Represents an overview of published information and data from many authors and sources· Does not contain original data (to any great extent)· Abstract and keywords are must· Usually includes a large number of references
· Follows the outline of Introduction, Materials/Methods, Discussion/Conclusions, and References· Supported by significant and relevant amount of data· Data should have been developed by the author(s)· Conclusions are based primarily on the data presented and compared to the published literature
· Describes a particular technology or application· Surgical techniques, new instruments, technical innovations· Contains original data generated in the process of developing the technology or in support of the application· Supported by a significant amount of data· May follow the outline of Introduction, Materials/Methods, Discussion/Conclusions, and References· Does the article impress upon the readers a new process/ or technology?· Case Studies- detailed description with data of the specific implementation of an application or the solution to a given practical problem
· The Case Series section of OA Text reports a series of 2-6 similar cases.· The cases should be unusual and give unique perspective on disease presentation, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and treatment side effects.· The cases should address a challenging diagnostic and/or therapeutic problem with possible solutions to help and treatment side effects.· The case should address a challenging diagnostic and/or therapeutic problem with possible solutions to help clinician's in managing these cases much more effectively.· Case series must be accompanied with comprehensive review of literature.· Abstract is required.
· Case Reports must provide an original description of previously unreported entity or report new presentation of a known disease or a new perspective of case which poses a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge.· Case Reports should include a comprehensive review of similar cases and state the differences between present case and previous cases.· Case reports should be accompanied by clinical, radiological and pathologic images.
· For 'Case in Images' section, the manuscript must meet all the criteria of a case report given above with the difference that 10-25 figures can be submitted for this section (Case Report can have maximum of 7 figures).· The figures may include clinical images, radiology images (USG, CT, MRI, PET, SPECT etc.), pathology images (histopathology, cytopathology, hematopathology) or a series of images of a procedure or event.
· Clinical Images section includes clinical images, diagnostic or investigative images especially images in radiology, endoscopy, pathology and cytopathology.· The images should be accompanied by brief history and case discussion followed by conclusion.· Abstract is not required.· The Clinical Images will undergo peer review similar to other articles.
· Articles focused on bridging scientific knowledge with policy issues, policy options, or policy analysis.
· This section includes the papers presented in the conference usually published in a volume.· It may be months before such information is published as a journal article, or it may never be published.
· Bionatura Text publishes announcements of conferences, meetings, seminars, symposia, courses, and other items. The announcements should be less the 150 words. They must be accompanied by name, address and email of a contact person.
· The submission represents work that has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.· The research carried out needs to be original and the data needs to be useful to other researchers. (we agree that it is not in our power to predict which submissions will be useful, hence we will be accepting all kinds of submissions inititally, with the hopes of learning and ignoring those submissions that are not useful) An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors' published claims. The article should present the results of scientific research and the results should be repeatable.· Futile hypothesis and failed experiments need to have a sound reasoning behind their results.· The assurance that the experiments, statistics, and other analysis are performed to a high technical standard, are repeatable and should be described in full detail.· Conclusions and discussions (if any) are presented in clearly explained avoiding ambiguity and are supported by the data.· Importance of research in the respective field.· Feature Prospective, Broad area of research, Rigorous methodology, Adequate evidence for its conclusions.· The previous literature has been treated fairly and adequately.· The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.· The authors have complied with applicable reporting standards and guidelines for data publication.· Avoid presenting your results with raw or unprocessed data.· The submission is written clearly and unambiguously in Standard English.
· Cover letter (required)· Manuscript (required)· Figures· Tables· Supplemental Material
· All manuscripts submitted to OA Text Journals are received by the Editorial Assistant who examines all files including cover letter, text files, images and figures. If the files meet the technical and formatting of OA Text, as given in the Instructions for Authors, authors are sent an acknowledgement of the manuscript along with a Manuscript ID number.· After assigning the Manuscript ID number, the manuscript is sent for editorial review and external peer review. Authors are requested to quote the manuscript ID number in all correspondences with OA Text journals. If the manuscript files do not meet the technical requirements of the journal, authors are sent detailed instructions about the changes required in the manuscript and asked to resubmit the files to the Editorial Office, using "Submit Revision" page.· After the files pass the technical and formatting requirements, the manuscript is assigned to a Section Editor or a member of the Editorial Board.· The Editor reviews the manuscript and returns the manuscripts along with the comments to the Editorial Assistant or Editorial Secretary. The editorial process gives the editors the authority to reject any manuscript, if it doesn’t not meet the scientific publishing standards or is out of scope of the journal.· Based on the comments of the Editor the manuscript is sent for the external peer review. The manuscript is usually sent to two to four expert peer reviewers. The peer reviewer's identities are kept confidential to ensure a fair and unbiased review of every manuscript.· The pertinent Editor-in-Chief will review submissions to identify those that are appropriate for full review, and assign an Associate Editor to manage the review process.· The Associate Editor will select reviewers, manage the review process, and will make one of the following publication recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief:· Accept without revision;· Invite author(s) to revise the submission to address specific but relatively minor concerns;· Invite author(s) to revise the submission to address moderate to major concerns;· Reject, but indicate to the author(s) that further work might justify a resubmission; or· Reject outright.· If a revision is recommended, the Editorial Assistant will include, with her or his review, a short paragraph summarizing the most important issues raised by the reviewers for the author(s) to address and ask the author(s) to include a Response to Reviewers with their revision. In some cases the Editorial Assistant may seek further review from the original or other reviewers.· The Editor-in-Chief will make the ultimate decision regarding publication, and communicate directly with the corresponding author on the results of the review process.· After acceptance, a Production Editor will perform a technical audit of the final manuscript and supporting files, to ensure that the submission will move through the production process smoothly.· After the acceptance of the manuscript, it may be edited for grammar, punctuation, style and accuracy. An edited, pre-print, proof of the manuscript with all figures, table and charts included, is sent to the corresponding author for approval. The proof will be sent as a PDF file. The authors will also be sent a proof corrections form, which the authors can use to submit any changes required in the manuscript. Please note that at this stage only the type-setting like incorrect punctuation will be corrected. It will not be possible to make any significant changes to the text or add or delete figures. The proof need to be returned to the Editorial Office within three days (72 hours).· After the correction proofs are received by the Editorial Office, the final version of the manuscript is prepared for publication. During preparation for publication, HTML, PDF, XML and other formats of the manuscript are prepared. After receiving page proofs, the average time to publication is approximately four weeks. All manuscripts are published in HTML and PDF formats.