Submissions

Author Guidelines

1. SUBMISSION

Authors should kindly note that submission implies that the content has yet to be published or submitted for publication elsewhere except as a brief abstract in the proceedings of a scientific meeting or research conference or symposium. Once you have prepared your submission by the Guidelines, manuscripts should be submitted online at https://journals.wgu.edu.et/index.php/mhsr/submissions#myQueue.

Submissions should comprise:

• A cover letter included in the ‘Cover Letter Field’. The text can be uploaded as a file. In keeping with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, each author’s contribution to the paper must be identified. Authors must also state in the letter that the protocol for the research project has been approved by a suitably constituted Ethics Committee of the institution where the work was undertaken, if appropriate, and that it conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki in 1995 (as revised in Edinburgh 2000), available here.

• The main text file should be prepared double-spaced. The top, bottom and side margins should be 25 mm.

Submission of revised papers

1. When revising your paper, considering the reviewers’ and Editor’s feedback, please highlight all changed text using the red font. Please do not use track changes as they can make papers difficult to follow.

2. To submit revised papers, please log into your author centre at https://journals.wgu.edu.et/index.php/mhsr/login and then create a revision. Please do not submit your revised paper as a new paper, as revised manuscripts are processed differently.

3. The submission process is very similar to that for new papers. You will be able to amend any details you wish.

4. Please upload an anonymous response to the editor and reviewers' comments, including a point-by-point response (listed or in a table) to the feedback in the decision email, alongside your revised manuscript files.

Data Protection

By submitting a manuscript to or reviewing for this publication, your name, email address, affiliation, and other contact details the publication might require will be used for the regular operations of the publication, including, when necessary, sharing with the publisher (Wallaga University). The publisher recognizes the importance of protecting the personal information collected from users in the operation of these services and has practices in place to ensure that steps are taken to maintain the security, integrity, and privacy of the personal data collected and processed.

2. AIMS AND SCOPE

MHSR Journal aims to promote rapid communication and exchange between the World and Wallaga University, as well as other Ethiopian Universities and academic institutions. It mainly reflects the latest advances in many scientific research disciplines in universities and academic institutions. Papers in the following fields will be considered for publication in the MHSR Journal:

• Original research papers

• Translational research

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis (including network)

• Research methodology papers

• Discussion papers

• Editorials

• Quality improvements

All papers must have a sound scientific, theoretical or philosophical base. Authors should bear in mind the international readership of the Journal and ensure their text and its content are understandable and relevant for readers nationwide and worldwide. There are no word limits in all papers.

3. PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

Style

Authors should consider the journal's international readership and ensure that their text and content are understandable and relevant worldwide. Use US English style. The relevance of findings and any implications should be considered for the wider readership, but epidemiological studies may present in the location of origin.

All measurements must be given in SI units. The font should be in Times New Roman. The font size should be 12.

Abbreviations/acronyms should be used sparingly and only where they ease the reader’s task by reducing the repetition of long, technical terms. Initially, use the word in full, followed by the abbreviation/acronym in parentheses. Thereafter, use the abbreviation/acronym. Drugs should be referred to by their generic names rather than brand names.

Parts of the Manuscript

The manuscript should be submitted in separate files: title page; main text file; figures. Additional supporting information for website publication may be uploaded as a separate file.

Title page

The title page should contain:

1. A short informative title that contains the major keywords. The title should not contain abbreviations or specify the country/area/region of origin;

2. The full names of the authors;

3. The author's institutional affiliations at which the work was carried out;

4. Acknowledgement;

5. Authorship statement confirming that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria and that all authors agree with the manuscript's content.

The present address of any author, if different from where the work was carried out, should be supplied in a footnote.

Authorship Criteria

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content (every author should have contributions). Authorship credits should be based on substantial contributions to:

1. conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2. drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

3. final approval of the version to be published

4. Conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) must all be met by all named authors.

Each paper should be accompanied by an authorship statement identifying the specific contribution of each author. For example:

(Author initials) designed the study. (Author initials) collected the data. (Author initials) analyzed the data. (Author initials) prepared the manuscript. All authors approved the final version for submission.

Acknowledgement

The source of financial grants and other funding should be acknowledged, including a frank declaration of the authors’ industrial links and affiliations. The contribution of colleagues or institutions should also be acknowledged. Thanks to anonymous reviewers, it is not allowed.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Authors must declare any financial support or relationships that may pose a conflict of interest. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support from non-public sector entities within the area of research. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed.

If the authors have no conflict of interest to report, add the statement that, ‘The authors declare no conflict of interest’ should be used.

Main text file

As papers are double-blind peer reviewed the main text file should not include any information that might identify the authors. The main text of the manuscript should be presented in the following order:

1. Title, abstract and keywords

2. Text (main manuscript)

3. References

4. Tables

5. Figure legends

6. Appendices (if relevant).

Figures and supporting information should be submitted as separate files. Footnotes to the text are not allowed and any such material should be incorporated into the text as parenthetical matter.

Additional supporting/supplementary material for website publication may be uploaded as a separate file. It should be referred to in the text in numbered form as Supplementary 1, Supplementary 2, etc.

Abstract

Abstract words are not limited; however, they should be brief enough. We encourage the use of a limit of 300 words. The abstract should contain headings such as Background, Aim, Methods, Results (or Findings), and Conclusion. The Abstract should not contain abbreviations, detailed statistics or references.

Key words

A maximum of 10 keywords should be supplied below the abstract, in alphabetical order, and should be taken from those recommended by the Index Medicus Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) browser list (www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html).

Text

Authors should use subheadings to divide the sections of their manuscript: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion and recommendation. Headings should be modified as appropriate for Discussion papers.

Statistical reporting

Statistical reporting starts with clear and concise statement of study aims and objectives/ research questions, explaining any technical terminology. Indicate which study objectives are primary, secondary or other (if applicable).

Study Design

1. Describe the main features of the study design and specify the outcome variables.

2. State clearly whether the study was designed as exploratory or confirmatory; recognize that hypothesis generating and hypothesis testing analyses are different and be clear on which the paper describes:

3. Exploratory Analysis: The study objectives may not always lead to pre-determined hypotheses and tests. The data analysis may include data exploration and require a flexible approach that allows for changes in response to accumulating results.

4. 
   Confirmatory Analysis: The key hypothesis is pre-defined, follows from the primary study objective/ research question, and is tested. The study is adequately controlled. Firm evidence in support of the claims should suffice to answer the primary objectives. The results should be robust (in contrast to being sensitive to outliers or missing values) and reliable.

Population and sample:

1. Describe the target population of the study and also the eligible, valuable, per protocol, and intention to treat populations (if applicable). The subjects in the study should mirror the target population as closely as possible, as appropriate to the study design.

2. Identify the type of sample and the selection mechanism of the sample (e.g. random sample, convenience sample, any stratification used); the pool from which the sample was drawn and any pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria; if appropriate, the assignment mechanism (randomised, partially randomized, non-randomized etc.) to different arms or treatments, and any blinding techniques used.

3. If a convenience sample was used or the subjects were not randomly assigned to treatments or arms, justify these choices; if appropriate, explain for which population the sample is representative and to what extent the results are generalisable. Fully acknowledge the limitations of the study design and methods.

Sample Size and Power:

1. Describe the expected/used sample size, and the (primary) outcome variable(s), distributional assumptions, parameters, the effect size, the choice of significance levels and power (if appropriate), upon which this sample size was based. Studies should be powered on the main objective and its appropriate analysis.

2. State the method of sample size calculation clearly and justify the assumptions made.

3. Use study/sampling/data flow charts to describe complicated sampling/dropout/study designs where useful and possible.

Data collection

1. Describe the method of data collection and its specifics (e.g. number of questions and range of response scores of questionnaires, meaning of scores).

2. Justify the choice of the selected tool or instrument, state whether the tool/ instrument is valid and reliable, supply key statistics where appropriate and list references that document evidence in support of their psychometric properties. Demonstrate that measuring instruments or questionnaires are reliable and valid in the study population.

3. If using a newly developed or "modified" tool, provide reasons and address the validity and reliability issues.

4. If using a previously developed/ published tool, address the copyright issue.

Statistical Analysis

1. Describe the statistical analysis clearly. If the analysis methods were specified prior to the statistical analysis (e.g. in a protocol), this should be stated here. If some of the analysis methods were selected after looking at the data, this should also be mentioned.

2. Specify the software and the version of the software used in the analysis.

3. Describe the main features of the performed statistical analysis clearly (e.g. confidence interval, including degree of confidence, hypothesis tests, including null/ alternative hypotheses, level of significance, particular test and test statistic); explain the statistical methodology that was used, and provide suitable references to the statistical literature if the statistical method is not elementary and/or its description in the paper is not self-contained.

4. Use and reference literature reviews for sophisticated techniques such as factor analysis.

5. Describe in detail the procedures that were applied to handle missing values and data, any outliers (supply the definition for an outlier), multiple hypothesis testing and adjustments for multiplicity, quantifying the type I error rate (e.g. Bonferroni, Holm, Hochberg, etc. adjusted p-values), or any other irregularities to which the statistical analysis could be sensitive.

6. Address issues such as multi-collinearity in multiple regression and multiple comparisons in ANOVA. Use multivariate techniques if appropriate for answering the research question (for example, instead of reporting multiple correlations).

7. Ensure appropriate choice of parametric/ non-parametric statistics. Use data transformations if needed, and justify and describe them.

8. Describe the model assumptions checks that were performed (e.g. test of normality or other distributional assumptions under the null hypothesis of any hypothesis test carried out, goodness-of-fit tests, tests for homoscedasticity of residuals, graphical plots or representations).

9. If necessary, consult a statistician during the design of the study and to review statistical analyses, presentation and interpretation of results.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical Considerations taken should be elaborated.

Results

1. Carefully explain how the results address each study objective. Illustrate the main characteristics of the key variables in suitable tables and/or graphical presentations but keep information in the text. Ensure that the results and tables' style and presentation are sufficiently high quality.

2. Report summary statistics, result summaries, or the quantities associated with a p-value in tables. When p-values associated with statistical tests are tabulated, indicate the particular test statistic, the degree of freedom, sample size, and the precise p-value (e.g. "p=0.003" or "p < 0.001"). In exploratory studies, confidence intervals are preferred over hypothesis tests. Yet, p-values may be calculated and utilized to flag specific differences of interest and highlight differences worth further examination in future studies.

3. Make sure that the format of the cell entries and data results (including the use of decimal places) are consistent throughout the table and manuscript.

4. Use appropriate measures of central tendency and spread (e.g. not means for highly skewed data) as summary statistics.

5. Summarize the response rates and the number (percentage) of missing and non-missing values in the appropriate tables or results.

6. Report variables' effects in clinically relevant measures, distinguishing between statistical and clinical significance. Do not conclude that a non-significant result ‘proves’ the null hypothesis.

7. Indicate adjustments of p-values together with the results.

8. Include a brief summary of the model assumption checks used to validate the assumptions of the presented models.

Discussion

Make sure that results derived from the data and analyses described and address the study objectives/ question and that conclusions arise from the results.

Provide an interpretation of the analyses/ results of the study, highlighting new findings and contributions. Consider findings in the light of prior knowledge presented in the Introduction. Do not introduce new topics / content at this stage; if it is important in light of findings, it should feature in the Introduction.

Describe possible limitations to the study, such as the limits of generalizability of the study and how the sample does/ does not adequately represent the population of interest. Identify any potential sampling bias (such as comparability to the control group, representativeness of sample population), violations of inclusion/exclusion criteria, irregularities or deviation from the planned study conduct that may have occurred. These may include limitations that impair the statistical analysis and/or affect the interpretation of the results.

Indicate the observed values for the variables and/or statistics whose values were estimated prior to the study in order to estimate the sample size and state any discrepancies between these estimated and observed values. Explain how these discrepancies may impact the power of a hypothesis test.

Address (if appropriate) the sensitivity of the analyses results, including p-values, regarding missing values, missing data imputation used, multiplicity issues, and any violations of model assumptions, how outliers were treated if likely to over-influence the analysis.

Conclusion

Without repeating what has been said before, summarize the new knowledge/contribution in the health and medicine fields. Elaborate the implications of this for health and medicine practice, management and policy, education and future research. Then give recommendations based on the main findings as described in the conclusion.

References

References should be prepared according to the Vancouver referencing style.

For example. Mosisa G, Diriba DC, Tsegaye R, Kejela G, Bayisa D, Oluma A, et al. Burden of intestinal parasitic infections and associated factors among pregnant women in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2023;9(1):5.

Tables

Tables should be self-contained and complement, but not duplicate, information contained in the text. Tables should be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals. A comprehensive but concise legend should appear above the table. Tables should be double-spaced and vertical lines should not be used to separate columns. Column headings should be brief, with units of measurement in parentheses; all abbreviations should be defined in footnotes. Statistical measures such as SD or SEM, p-value should be identified in the headings. The table and its legend/footnotes should be understandable without referencing the text. The accepted tables will be placed under results section at appropriate place.

Figure legends

Type figure legends on a separate page. Legends should be concise but self-explanatory – the figure and its legend must be understandable without reference to the text. Include definitions of any symbols used and define/explain all abbreviations and units of measurement. If figures have been reproduced from another source, the Letter to the Editor should state that copyright permission to reproduce the figure has been obtained. The accepted figures will be placed under results section at appropriate place.

Appendices

These should be placed at the end of the paper, numbered in Roman numerals and referred to in the text. If written by a person other than the author of the main text, the writer’s name should be included below the title.

Figures

All illustrations (line drawings and photographs) are classified as figures. Figures should be cited in consecutive order in the text using Arabic numerals.

Supplementary Information (Online Only)

Supplementary information must be important, additional information that is relevant but not essential or integral to the parent article and which does not appear in the printed and online editions of the journal. Supplementary Information can comprise additional tables, data sets, figures, movie files, audio clips, and other related nonessential multimedia files. Like the manuscript accompanying it, it should be original and not previously published. If previously published, it must be submitted with the necessary permissions.

Research Reporting Guidelines

Accurate and complete reporting enables readers to fully appraise research, replicate it, and use it. Authors are encouraged to adhere to the following research reporting standards.

CONSORT statement for reports of randomised trials and cluster randomised trials
STROBE statement for observational studies (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional designs)
PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Complete PRISMA checklist

See http://www.equator-network.org/ for other study types.

Publication Ethics

This journal is a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) member Note that this journal uses Turnitin Cross Check software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

Those submitting papers to the journal must accept responsibility for preparing papers to a level suitable for review. This preparation should include subjecting the paper to critique by colleagues and others by “workshopping” and revising the paper prior to submission. Manuscripts should be written in a clear, concise, direct style, and so that they are intelligible to the professional reader who is not a specialist in the particular field. The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality of the research, the significance of its contribution to health and medicine, the quality of the work as a whole, relevance to our international readership and the clarity of presentation as judged by the Editor-in-Chief, considering but not bound by the advice of referees and editors.

Screening

The Editor-in-Chief and Editor screen all manuscripts to ensure they meet the journal’s criteria and if published, would be likely to be read and cited by the Journal’s readership and would have the potential to contribute to advancing medicine and health sciences knowledge, policy and practice. There is no process of appeal for papers declined at this stage.

Papers sent to review will only be determined to meet the appropriate quality and relevance requirements. All papers should be original and not submitted elsewhere.

Reviews

At least two people will review the manuscripts. This will include one peer reviewer using a double-blind system and either a second blinded reviewer or an Editor/Editor-in-Chief. When the reviews are returned, the Editor-in-Chief or Editor reads the paper again and identifies the next step: whether any further modifications are required or if the paper can be accepted or should be declined. If further revision is required, the resubmitted revised version will be returned to the same reviewers unless they prefer not to see it again. Similar to other journals, our policy is that the reviewers advise the Editor and Editor in Chief but it is the latter who makes the final decision reserves the right to decline any material for publication.

The Editors retain the right to modify the style of a manuscript to eliminate ambiguity and repetition and improve communication between author and reader, and but any major changes will be agreed with the author(s), who will view the final version when they are asked to check the final page proofs.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest they are aware of. Conflicts of interest would include: if they work or have worked in the same institution and collaborated with the authors, if they own stock in a particular company, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors. Such conflicts of interest will not automatically disqualify the individual from acting as a reviewer; however, reviewers are obligated to provide the Editor with this information so that they may determine the suitability of the proposed reviewer.

Editorial conflicts of interest

Members of the Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief, are welcome to publish in the journal. Suppose a submission authored by a editorial team or board member is received to ensure unbiased and independent handling of such papers through review. In that case, the manuscript will be processed by editorial team members with no relationship to the author other than their journal role, i.e. no history of collaboration or affiliation in common.
In the above instances, the published paper will include a statement noting the exceptional arrangement.

Appeals

Any appeal against a decision about a paper should be filed within 14 days of notification of the decision. The appeal should be in the form of a letter addressed and submitted to the Editor-in-Chief at mhsr@wgu.edu.et. The letter should include clear and concise grounds for the appeal, including specific points of disagreement with the decision. The appeal will then be assessed by editorial team members not involved in the original decision, informed by the reviewer assessments and subsequent editorial communications. You will be informed of the outcome of the appeal in writing, generally within 30 days. The decision will be final.

6. AUTHOR LICENSING

If a paper is accepted for publication, the author identified as the formal corresponding author will receive an email and they will be required to complete a copyright license agreement on behalf of all authors of the paper.

Authors may choose to publish under the terms of the journal’s standard copyright agreement under the terms of a Creative Commons License.

Open Access fees: Authors who choose to publish using Open Access will not pay the APC fee.

4. PUBLICATION PROCESS AFTER ACCEPTANCE

Proof reading

Authors will receive an e-mail notification with a link and instructions for accessing HTML page proofs online. Page proofs should be carefully proofread for any copy editing or typesetting errors. Online guidelines are provided within the system. No special software is required, all common browsers are supported. Authors should also make sure that any renumbered tables, figures, or references match text citations and that figure legends correspond with text citations and actual figures. Proofs must be returned within 48 hours of receipt of the email. Return of proofs via e-mail is possible in the event that the online system cannot be used or accessed.

Early View

The journal offers rapid speed to publication. Early View articles are complete full-text articles published online in advance of their publication in a printed issue. Early View articles are complete and final. They have been fully reviewed, revised and edited for publication, and the authors' final corrections have been incorporated. Because they are in final form, no changes can be made after online publication. Early View articles are given a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), which allows the article to be cited and tracked before allocation to an issue. After print publication, the DOI remains valid and can continue to be used to cite and access the article.

5. POST PUBLICATION

Access and Sharing

When the article is published online: 

• The author receives an email alert (if requested).

• The link to the published article can be shared through social media.

• The author will have free access to the paper.

Print copies of the article can be available if the issue is fulfilled.

6. DURATION OF PUBLICATION

The average period from successful submission to publication will be 12 months. The first decision will be given within one of submission.

7. EDITORIAL OFFICE CONTACT DETAILS

Editorial email: mhsr@wgu.edu.et.

Author Guidelines drafted 29 January 2024