Author's Guidelines


ABMS provides you easy and user friendly ONLINE SUBMISSION OF ARTICLES on its web site.

Visit and REGISTER yourself as AUTHOR by filling a form. Log in with your username and password. Click on AUTHOR on USER HOME page under the heading of Advances in Basic Medical Sciences Journal. Click NEW SUBMISSION and follow the following 5 steps of manuscript submission as per online instructions.

  1. Start
  2. Enter Metadata
  3. Upload Submission
  4. Upload Supplementary Files
  5. Confirmation

Log in > User Home > Author > Sub- missions > New Submission > step 1 Starting the submission> step 2 Enter, metadata> step 3 Upload submission > step 4 Upload supplementary files > step 5 Confirmation


All submitted manuscripts submitted online or via email should be accompanied by a a letter of undertaking, available on the website and a covering letter from the authors responsible for correspondence regarding the manuscript. The covering letter should contain the following copyright disclosure statement/undertaking, duly signed by ALL contributing authors. Please note that we cannot accept electronic signatures; all authors must sign by hand. Please complete multiple forms if necessary, and send the scanned copy with your submission  the journal website or via email to:


The word template of journal article can be downlaoded at ABMS template. 

While submitting manuscripts, please carefully follow the instructions given below:-

  1. Submit the manuscript with our online editorial system at in World in one file starting from title of the manuscript to references including tables. All submitted manuscripts must be exclusively contributed to Advances in Basic Medical Sciences. Covering letter should also state what information this study adds to medical literature and how it will influence clinical practice.
  2. Plagiarism: Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin software and those found guilty or involved in publication misconduct are liable to be black listed.
  3. Do not submit tables as photographs. Give each column an abbreviated heading. Identify statistical measures such as standard deviation and standard error of the mean. Make sure that each figure, table is cited in the text.
  4. The figures should be sent in JPEG format with atleast 300 dpi of resoulation as separate file (upload as supplementary file).
  5. We accept only those manuscripts or data that have not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for publication. However, re-analysis of previously published data can be accepted.
  6. In case the manuscript was earlier submitted to some other Journal and was rejected, the authors must provide full information as to why it was rejected, for proper analysis.
  7. All manuscripts by multiple authors must be signed by all the authors and contain details of individual authors contribution. All authors must fullfill ICMJE criteria for authorship. In case of suspicion of gift authorship the journal may refuse further processing of the manuscript. Maximum of four authors are allowed in single center studies.
  8. Informed consent of the patients participating in the study should be undertaken.
  9. All studies must be approved by the relevant Ethics Committee/Institution Review Boards of the respective institutions.
  • The authors as well as reviewers are expected to declare the conflict of interest if any.
  • Source of funding for the study should be clearly mentioned.
  • The journal will accept:- (a) Guest Editorials on important  subjects  of  current  interest,  (b) Original Articles, (c) Review Articles, (d) Case Reports, (e) Clinical Updates (f) Short Communications (g) Book Reviews (h) Case Studies (i) Special communication

Summary of Technical Requirements

Manuscripts except short communications & Guest Editorials should contain the following sections:-

  • It should be typed in double space with clear margins on both sides.
  • Begin each section or component on a new page.
  • Review the sequence: title page, abstract and key words, text, acknowledgments, references, tables (each on separate page),
  • Illustrations should not be larger than 203 × 254 mm (8 × 10 inches).
  • Manuscript should not exceed 20 pages excluding tables and
  • There should be no more than 40 references in original article, <10 references in case report and no more than 100 references in a review article.
  • Include permission to reproduce previously published material or to use illustrations that may identify human
  • Keep copies of everything


ABMS is not charging any processing or publication fees from authors at the moment.


All manuscripts of original research should contain following sections:-

a)  Title Page

The title page should carry

  • The title of the article, which should be concise, specific and Authors should include all information in the title that will make electronic retrieval of the article both sensitive and specific
  • Full name of each author, with his or her highest academic degree(s) and institutional
  • The name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be
  • Disclaimers, if
  • The name, email and postal address of the author responsible for correspondence about the
  • The name and address of the author to whom requests for reprints should be addressed, source(s) of support in the form of grants, equipment, drugs, or all of
  • A short running title/head or footline of no more than 40 characters (count letters and spaces) at the foot of the title

b)  Abstract and Key Words

The second page should carry structured abstract of not more than 250 words.

The abstract should state the Objective: purpose of the study or investigation; Methodology: study design, place and duration of study, basic procedures as selection of study subjects or laboratory animals, observational and analytical methods; Results: main findings giving- specific data and their statistical significance, if possible and Conclusion: the principal conclusion. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations.

Below the abstract authors should pro- vide, and identify as such, 3 to 10 Key words or short phrases that will assist indexers in cross-indexing the article and may be published with the abstract. Terms from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) list of Index Medicus should be used. If suitable MeSH-terms are not yet available for recently introduced terms, present terms may be used.

  • The main manuscript of original article is divided into subsections according to “IMRADC” structure, with the headings Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion and Conclusion

c)  Introduction

State the purpose of the article and summarize the rationale for the study or observation. Give only strictly pertinent references and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.

d)  Methodology

Describe your selection of the observational or experimental subjects (patients or laboratory animals, including controls) clearly. Identify the age, sex, and other important characteristics of the subjects. Because the relevance of such variables as age, sex, and ethnicity to the object of research is not always clear, authors should explicitly justify them when they are included in a study report. The guiding principle should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way. For example, authors should explain why only subjects of certain ages were included or why women were excluded. Authors should avoid terms such as “race,” which lacks precise biological meaning, and use alter- native descriptors such as “ethnicity” or “ethnic group” instead. Authors should specify carefully what the descriptors mean, and tell exactly how the data were collected (for example, what terms were used in survey forms, whether the data were self-reported or assigned by others, etc.). Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer’s name and ad- dress in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow other workers to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods (see below); provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations. Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s), and route(s) of administration. Reports of randomized clinical trials should present information on all major study elements, including the protocol (study population, interventions or exposures, outcomes, and the rationale for statistical analysis), assignment of interventions (methods of randomization, concealment of allocation to treatment groups), and the method of masking (blinding). Authors submitting review manuscripts should include a section describing the methods used for locating, selecting, extracting, and synthesizing data. These methods should also be summarized in the abstract.

a)   Ethics

When reporting experiments on human subjects, indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1983. Do not use patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institution’s or a national research council’s guide for, or any national law on, the care and use of laboratory animals was followed. Send the copy of approval certificate from Institutional review board for bioethics/ research ethical committees.

b)  Statistics

Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as the use of P values, which fails to convey important quantitative information. Discuss the eligibility of experimental subjects. Give de- tails about randomization. Describe the methods for and success of any blinding of observations. Report the complications of treatment, if any. Give numbers of observations and report losses to observation (such as dropouts from a clinical trial). References for the design of the study and statistical methods should be to standard works when possible (with pages stated) rather than to papers in which the designs or methods were originally reported. Specify any general-use computer programs used. Put a general description of methods in the Methods section. When data are summarized in the Results section, specify the statistical methods used to analyze them. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess its support. Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries; do not duplicate data in graphs and tables. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as “random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.” Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols.

c)  Results

Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations. Do not repeat in the text all the data in the tables or illustrations; emphasize or summarize only important observations.

d)  Discussion

Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that follow from them. Do not repeat in detail data or other material given in the Introduction or the Results section. Include in the Discussion section the implications of the findings and their limitations, including implications for future research. Relate the observations to other relevant studies. Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not completely supported by the data. In particular, authors should avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless their manuscript includes economic data and analysis. Avoid claiming priority and alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypothesis when warranted, but clearly label them as such. Recommendations, when appropriate, may be included.

e)  Acknowledgments

List all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as 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 have given written permission to be acknowledged.

f)   References

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 figures legends should be numbered in accor- dance with the sequence established by the first identification in the text of the particular table or figure. Use the style of the examples below, which are based on the formats used by the NLM in Index Medicus. The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus. Consult the List of Journals Indexed in Index Medicus, published annually as a separate publication by the library and as a list in the January issue of Index Medicus. The list can also be obtained through the library’s web site. Avoid using abstracts as references. References to papers accepted but not yet published should be designated as “in press” or “forthcoming”; authors should obtain written permission to cite such papers as well as verification that they have been accepted for publication. Information from manuscripts submitted but not accepted should be cited in the text as “unpublished observations” with written permission from the source. Avoid citing a “personal communication” unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. For scientific articles, authors should obtain written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication. The references must be verified by the author(s) against the original documents. The Uniform Requirements style (the Vancouver style) is based largely on an ANSI standard style adapted by the NLM for its databases. Notes have been added where Vancouver style differs from the style now used by NLM.

Articles in Journals

  1. Standard journal article

Up to six authors: Alam JM, Baig JA, Mahmood SR, Sultana I, Shaheen R, Waheed A. Evaluation of urinary pro- tein to creatinine ratio as a predictor of end-stage renal disease. KUST Med J 2009; 1(1): 2-5.

More than six authors: List the first six authors followed by et al. Parkin DM, Clayton D, Black RJ, Masuyer E, Friedl HP, Ivanov E, et al. Childhood leu- kaemia in Europe after Chernobyl: 5 year follow-up. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1006-12.

  1. Organization as author:

The Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. Clinical exercise stress testing. Safety and performance guidelines. Med J Aust 1996;164:282-4.

  1. No author given

Cancer in South Africa [editorial]. S Afr Med J 1994; 84:15.

  1. Article not in English:

(Note: NLM translates the title to English, encloses the translation in square brackets, and adds an abbre- viated language designator.) Ryder TE, Haukeland EA, Solhaug JH. Bilateral infrapatellar seneruptur hostidligere frisk kvinne. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1996; 116: 41-2.

  1. Volume with supplement:

Shen HM, Zhang QF. Risk assessment of nickel carcinogenicity and occu- pational lung cancer. Environ Health Perspect 1994;102 Suppl 1:275-82.

  1. Issue with supplement

Payne DK, Sullivan MD, Massie MJ. Women’s psychological reactions to breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1996; 23(1 Suppl 2):89-97.

  1. Volume with part

Ozben T, Nacitarhan S, Tuncer N. Plasma and urine sialic acid in non-in- sulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Clin Biochem 1995; 32(Pt 3):303-6.

  1. Issue with part

Poole GH, Mills SM. One hundred consecutive cases of flap lacerations of the leg in ageing patients. N Z Med J 1994; 107 (986 Pt 1): 377-8.

  1. Issue with no volume

Turan I, Wredmark T, Fellander-Tsai. Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop 1995; (320): 110-4.

    10. No issue or volume

Browell DA, Lennard TW. Immuno- logic status of the cancer patient and the effects of blood transfusion on antitumor responses. Curr Opin Gen Surg 1993: 325-33.

  1. Pagination in Roman numerals

Fisher GA, Sikic BI. Drug resistance in clinical oncology and hematology. Introduction. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1995 Apr;9(2):xi-xii.

  1. Type of article indicated as needed

Enzensberger W, Fischer PA. Metro- nome in Parkinson’s disease [letter]. Lancet 1996;347:1337. Clement J, De Bock R. Hematological complications of hantavirus nephropathy (HVN) [abstract]. Kidney Int 1992; 42: 1285.

  1. Article containing retraction

Garey CE, Schwarzman AL, Rise ML, Seyfried TN. Ceruloplasmin gene defect associated with epilepsy in EL mice [retraction of Garey CE, Schwarzman AL, Rise ML, Seyfried TN. In: Nat Genet 1994; 6: 426-31]. Nat Genet 1995; 11: 104.

  1. Article retracted

Liou GI, Wang M, Matragoon S. Pre- cocious IRBP gene expression during mouse development [retracted in Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35: 3127]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35: 1083-8.

  1. Article with published erratum

Hamlin JA, Kahn AM. Herniography in symptomatic patients following ingui- nal hernia repair [published erratum appears in West J Med 1995;162:278]. West J Med 1995;162:28-31.

Books and Other Monographs

(Note: Previous Vancouver style incorrectly had a comma rather than a semicolon between the publisher and the date.)

  1. Personal author(s)

Ringsven MK, Bond D. Gerontology and leadership skills for nurses. 2nd ed. Albany (NY): Delmar Publishers; 1996.

  1. Editor(s), compiler(s) as author

Norman IJ, Redfern SJ, editors. Mental health care for elderly people. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996.

  1. Organization as author and publisher

Institute of Medicine (US). Looking at the future of the Medicaid program. Washington: The Institute; 1992.

  1. Chapter in a book

(Note: Previous Vancouver style had a colon rather than a p before pagination.) Phillips SJ, Whisnant JP.

Hypertension and stroke. In: Laragh JH, Brenner BM, editors. Hyperten- sion: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1995. p. 465-78.

  1. Conference proceedings

Kimura J, Shibasaki H, editors. Recent advances in clinical neurophysiology. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of EMG and Clinical Neuro- physiology; 1995 Oct 15-19; Kyoto, Japan. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1996.

  1. Conference paper

Bengtsson S, Solheim BG. Enforce- ment of data protection, privacy and security in medical informatics. In: Lun KC, Degoulet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O, editors. MEDINFO 92. Proceed- ings of the 7th World Congress on Medical Informatics; 1992 Sep 6-10; Geneva, Switzerland. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1992. p. 1561-5.

  1. Scientific or technical report

Issued by funding/sponsoring agency: Smith P, Golladay K. Payment for du- rable medical equipment billed during skilled nursing facility stays. Final report. Dallas (TX): Dept. of Health and Human Services (US), Office of Evaluation and Inspections; 1994 Oct. Report    No.:  HHSIGOEI69200860.

Issued by performing agency: Field MJ, Tranquada RE, Feasley JC, editors. Health services research: work force and educational issues. Washington: National Academy Press; 1995. Contract   No.:   AHCPR282942008.

Sponsored by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.

  1. Dissertation

Kaplan SJ. Post-hospital home health care: the elderly’s access and utiliza- tion [dissertation]. St. Louis (MO): Washington Univ.; 1995.

  1. Patent

Larsen CE, Trip R, Johnson CR, inven- tors; Novoste Corporation, assignee.

Methods for procedures related to the electrophysiology of the heart. US patent 5,529,067. 1995 Jun 25.

Unpublished Material

  1. In press

(Note: NLM prefers “forthcoming” because not all items will be printed.) Leshner AI. Molecular mechanisms of cocaine addiction. N Engl J Med. In press 1996.

Electronic Material

  1. Journal article in electronic format

Morse SS. Factors in the emergence of infectious diseases. Emerg Infect Dis [serial online] 1995 Jan-Mar [cited 1996 Jun 5];1(1):[24 screens]. Avail- able from: URL: ncidod/EID/eid.htm

  1. Monograph in electronic format

CDI, clinical dermatology illustrated [monograph on CD-ROM]. Reeves JRT, Maibach H. CMEA Multimedia Group,  producers.  2nd  ed. Version 2.0. San Diego: CMEA; 1995.

  1. Computer file

Hemodynamics III: the ups and downs of hemodynamics [computer program]. Version 2.2. Orlando (FL): Computerized Educational Systems; 1993.

g)  Illustrations and legends

Submit 2 hard copies on high-quality laser printer paper or bond paper. For best possible reproduction, avoid using shading or dotted patterns; if unavoidable, submit this type of illustration in the form of a glossy photograph for best results. Use thick, solid lines and bold, solid type. Place lettering on a white background; avoid reverse type (white lettering on a dark background). Illustrations (three complete sets of glossy prints) should be numbered in the order of their mention in the text and should be marked lightly on the back with the first author’s last name and an arrow to indicate the top edge. Special charges will be made by the publisher for publishing figures in color. Before publication the corresponding author will be sent a cost estimate; at that time he or she may decide to pay the costs or print the illustration in black and white. Only good photographic prints of original drawings should be supplied. All lettering must be done professionally. Do not send original artwork, x-ray films, or ECG tracings. Glossy photographs are preferred; good black-and-white contrast is essential. Preferred size for submitted illustrations is 5 x 7 inches. Suitable figure legends should be typewritten double spaced on a separate sheet of paper and included at the end of the manuscript. If a figure has been taken from previously copyrighted material, the legend must give full credit to the original source and letters of permission must be submitted with the manuscript. Articles appear in both the print and online versions of the Journal, and wording of the letter should specify permission in all forms and media. Failure to get electronic permission rights may result in the images not appearing in the online version. Illustrations cannot be returned by the publisher. Figures may be submitted in electronic format. All images should be at least 5 inches wide. Graphics software such as Photoshop and Illustrator, not presentation software such as PowerPoint, CorelDraw, or Harvard Graphics, should be used in the creation of the art. Color images need to be CMYK, at least 300 DPI, and be accompanied by a digital color proof, not a color laser print or color photocopy. Please include hardware and software information, in addition to the file names.

h)  Tables

Tables should be self-explanatory and numbered in Roman numerals in the order of their mention in the text. Provide a brief title for each. Type each double-spaced on a separate page. Abbreviations should be defined in a double-spaced footnote at the end of the table. If any material in a table or a table itself has been taken from previously copyrighted material, a double paced footnote must give full credit to the original source and permission of the author and publisher must be obtained. Send letters of permission to the Editor with the manuscript.

i)    Conflict of Interest Notification Page

Authors should declare any potential conflict of interest and any financial support for the study may be disclosed as well.

j)   Systematic Review Article

A systematic review paper should have a structured Abstract of no more than 250 words using headlines as Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Ex- traction, Data Synthesis and Conclusions and with 3-10 key words for indexing.

Objective: Give precise statement of the primary objective for the review. Define if the review emphasizes cause and diagnosis, prognosis, therapy and intervention, or prevention. Define if the review would be highly selective as including only randomized controlled trials (RCT) or have wider inclusion criteria.

Data Sources: Present data sources used, including any time restriction.

Study Selection: Describe criteria to select studies for detailed review. Specify meth- ods used, as blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers.

Data Extraction: Describe how extraction was made, including assessment of quality and validity.

Data Synthesis: Present the main results of the review and state major identified sources of variation between studies.

Conclusion: Give a clear statement of the conclusions made, its generalisability and limitations.

The Introduction of the paper could be similar to an original report, but without any longer literature survey, only reviewing shortly previous structural reviews and stating the reason and aim of the present review.

The Methodology section may have sub- headings corresponding to the Abstract (Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction) and should include clearly defined and reported inclusion and exclusion criteria, and specification of databases and other formal register, conference proceedings, reference lists and trial authors, which are used as sources. The full search strategy should be given so that it is easy to reproduce. If it is considered too long to be published in the article, an electronic document as an Appendix may be alternative. The stages of selection usually include several steps, each undertaken by at least two independent researchers (identified in the Methods). There will be an initial selection from titles/abstracts to select the articles to be examined in full. The full articles should be re-screened against the selection criteria. The articles fulfilling the criteria should be subjected to quality assessment. Summarize in a flow chart with the number of articles selected and reasons for rejection at each stage. The quality of the methodology should be assessed having an appropriate tool and also for outcome measures and blinding of outcome assessors. The tool that is most appropriate will depend on the extent and nature of the anticipated research evidence.

The Result section corresponds to Data synthesis in the Abstract and may present tables with long lists of selected articles. Extracted data from trials should, when available, include report of randomization method, study population, intervention methods and delivery, reasons to losses at follow-up, information related to treatment monitoring, post-intervention assessments and follow-up. Report the major outcomes, which were pooled, and include odds ratios or effects sizes. Use when applicable meta-analysis. Numerical values should, when possible, be accompanied with confidence intervals. State the major identified sources of variation between reported studies, as differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. Tables and figures must be self-explanatory and have appropriate title or caption. The methods for synthesis of evidence should be pre-deter- mined. Sometimes it may not be possible to pool the data, but a synthesis of best evidence ought to be given.

The Discussion section should be structured similar to an original report. The findings should be discussed with respect to the degree of consistency, variation, and generalisability. New contribution to the literature based on the review conducted and where information is insufficient must be stated. Providing the limitations of the review would be helpful. Suggest the need for new studies and future research agenda.

Length of paper: The total length of the text should usually not be more than 5000 words (corresponding to 8-9 printed pages) and in addition tables and the reference list. The reference list should be comprehensive and will therefore often be rather long. However, in the printed version of a review paper normally not more than 100 references will be accepted. If needed and without an upper limit, additional references may be published only electronically with a link to such an Appendix given in the original version of the paper.

k)  Narrative Review Article

A narrative (educational) review should have an unstructured Abstract which should not exceed 200 words, summarizing the current status of the knowledge about the topic reviewed followed by 3-10 key words for indexing.

Introduction: This should provide a background to a review which focuses on relevant literature published over the last few years that has advanced our understanding of the issue under consideration. The headlines in the review have to be chosen according to the need of that particular review.

There is usually no Method section. How- ever proper Research strategy should be given. Give in detail the strategy for inclusion of article in the review. Details of the database searched and the time period for which it was searched should be stated.

The Discussion section could be structured along the lines for an original report. At the end of discussion, limitations of the study and key message may be given.

Conclusions: Conclusions of the article also highlighting the problems, or areas for future research may be included.

Word count: Between 2000 and 5000 words.

Tables: up to 5. Illustrations: up to 3. References: up to 100.

l)   Case Reports

Case Reports should be limited to three type written pages, including an un- structured abstract, a short introduction, details of the case report followed by discussion and 6 to 10 references. Relevant documentary proof including pictures of the case (with the consent of the patient) or investigations like radiological or histopathological evidence should be submitted along with manuscript.

Letters to the Editor are considered for publication (subject to editing and abridgment) provided they do not contain material that has been submitted or published elsewhere. The letter must be typewritten and double-spaced. Its text, not including reference, must not exceed 250 words if it is in reference to a recent journal article, or 400 words in all other cases (please provide a word count). It must have no more than five references and one figure or table. Letters referring to a recent journal article must be received within four weeks of its publication. Please include your full address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address.


See website for checklist for authors

Authors should take help from following guidelines in writing manuscripts



Type of study


CONSORT randomized controlled http://www.con- (updated) trials CONSORT 2010)

randomized controlled trials


studies of diagnostic accuracy


systematic reviews and me- ta-analyses


observational studies in epidemiology


meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology


  • At the end of the text, under a sub- heading “Conflict of interest”, all authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of financial conflicts include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patents or patent applications, and travel grants, all within 3 years of beginning the work submitted. If there are no conflicts of interest, authors should state
  • All authors are required to provide a signed statement of their conflicts of interest as part of the author’s declaration.


  • All sources of funding should be declared as an acknowledgment at the end of the
  • At the end of the Methodology section, under a subheading “Role of the funding source”, authors must describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for

If there is no Methodology section, the role of the funding source should be stated as an acknowledgment. If the funding source had no such involvement, the authors should state.

  • The corresponding author should confirm that he or she had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for


  • Studies on patients or volunteers need approval from an ethical committee and informed consent from participants. These should be documented in the
  • If there is an unavoidable risk of breach of privacy — eg, in a clinical photograph or in case details — the patient’s written consent for publication, or that of the next of kin, must be
  • To respect your patient’s privacy, please do not send the consent form to Instead, we require you to send a statement signed by yourself confirming that you have obtained consent from the patient using con- sent form.
  • Consent must be obtained for all Case Reports, Clinical Pictures, and Adverse Drug


  • Every new manuscript submitted to ABMS is immediately assessed by an editor for an initial inspection (internal peer review).
  • An article with publication potential is sent to TWO external peer reviewers to evaluate the suitability of the article for publication based on its quality, novelty, and relevance for

A time frame of minimum 4 weeks will be given for a reviewer to go through a manuscript and send his suggestions to the editor. Failing which will generate a reminder from the editor with additional 4 weeks time for review to be completed.

  • If a reviewer is unable to meet the time frame agreed upon or he declines to review the manuscript, the manuscript will be sent to another
  • The editor may establish a system for rapid review of especially important manuscripts. This may include review only by editors or asking reviewers to complete their evaluations within a shorter period of time than is allowed routinely. Authors who seek rapid review should explain why their manuscripts merit such
  • Reviewers are advisors to authors and editors. The editor may ask re- viewers to make recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, and should pay attention to the recommendations, but the editor must be the one who makes the
  • The editor may reject manuscripts without outside review, for example if the subject matter is outside the purview of the journal, a manuscript on the same topic is just about to be published, the quality of the man- uscript is poor, or criteria for the submission of manuscripts are not


  • The editor makes a decision about the manuscript (accept, invite a revision, or reject) based on a consideration of all the reviewer comments, his own critique, and other external
  • What considerations should enter into the decision? These may include the comments and recommendations of the reviewers, the availability of space, and the most important is the judgment of the editor(s) regarding the suitability of the manuscript for the journal and the value and interest of the manuscript to the journal’s
  • The editor may always seek additional review and advice if
  • Decisions are communicated to authors by the This means that the editor may need to provide explanations for the decision independent of the comments of the reviewers that are to be sent to the authors.
  • Decisions to reject a manuscript may be based on scientific weakness (poor research design, inappropriate methods of study), lack of originality, lack of importance and interest to readers, or simply lack of space. The editor will explain to authors the reasons for decisions to reject manuscripts. This is particularly important when the editor rejects a manuscript but the tone of the comments of the reviewers that will be sent to the authors is
  • The editor should actively encourage revision of manuscripts thought to be potentially acceptable. When an editor seeks revision of a manuscript, he should make clear which revisions are essential, and which are If the comments of the reviewers are contradictory, the editor must decide and tell the authors which comments the authors should follow. Editors may add their own comments and suggestions for revision, and they (or some person in the editorial office designated by the editor) are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts meet the journal’s policies regarding length and style.

In general, manuscripts that are potentially acceptable but need very major revision or additional data should be rejected, but the editor can encourage resubmission. When this is done, the editor should explain precisely what is needed to make the manuscript acceptable. It is a disservice to authors to request revision and then later reject the manuscript. As an alternative, the editor may choose to work closely with the authors to make the manuscript acceptable for publication.

  • The editor should not make decisions regarding manuscripts about which he may have a conflict of interest, for example manuscripts submitted by members of the editor’s own institution or people who have been collaborators of the editor in the In this instance, the manuscript should be handled by an assistant editor or preferably a person outside of the editorial office who is given full power to select reviewers and make decisions regarding acceptance or rejection. The same policy should be followed if the editor himself submits a manuscript - other than an editorial to his journal, which he should only rarely.
  • Revised manuscripts should be evaluated by editors, to determine if the revisions are satisfactory, and not returned to reviewers. An exception might be when the revised manuscript includes changes that may have introduced important new shortcomings about which the editor needs advice from one or more of the original reviewers. Revised manuscripts should not be sent to new reviewers.
  • Editors should immediately reject a resubmitted manuscript that was previously rejected and has not been revised.


  • All articles submitted to ABMS are subjected to plagiarism ABMS follows the standard definition and description of plagiarism (http://fac-pub. Index.html) and we endorse Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), ICMJE, Pakistan Association of Medical Editors (PAME), Higher Education Commission (HEC) policies regarding plagiarism available on, and
  • Intellectual contribution and originality of every article is to be defined by the authors and this is the responsibility of authors to be aware of various forms of plagiarism like plagiarism of ideas, text, paraphrasing, self-plagiarism including redundant/duplicate publication, salami slicing (data fragmentation) and text recycling ignorance regarding plagiarism and its various forms will not be considered as an excuse.
  • Any manuscript submitted for publication a manuscript accepted for publication or even an article that has already been published in the journal is found to be plagiarized, the matter will be dealt with according to COPE guidelines.
  • The Editorial Board will immediately stop the processing/ publication of the article and will ask for an explanation from the corresponding author will be required to respond with an explanation within 30 days of receiving the letter from the editor.
  • In case an acceptable explanation is provided by the author(s), the ABMS editorial board may recommend appropriate changes after which the review process for the submitted manuscript may
  • In case of non-response in the stipulated time or unsatisfactory explanation, the ABMS editorial board will decide regarding the fate of the article and authors including
  • Rejection of the manuscript,
  • Withdrawal of already published article (as the case may be)
  • Debarment of the authors(s) from further publication in the ABMS for one year or permanently depending upon the nature of
  • The author will be on
  • HEC, PMDC, PAME, and the author’s institute will also be notified for information and possible
  • In case of multiple submissions, other editors will also be informed. The author(s) will have to provide documentary proof of retraction from publication, if such a defence is pleaded.
  • Those claiming intellectual/idea or data theft of an article must provide documentary proof in their

13) Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section (see Section II.A.3). If AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should describe this use in the methods (see Section IV.A.3.d). Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship (see Section II.A.1). Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an authors or co-author, nor cite AI as an authors. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.


For Infomation: