Rules concerning tables and figures:
- All tables and figures created in programs such as MS WORD/EXCEL/Open Office should be saved as PDF files or sent in their original form to our Office.
- The required minimum size for all figures created in different programs than those above (JPG, TIFF, PNG, BMP files) is 600x600 pixels. The resolution should be 250DPi or higher.
- As for the colour models, RGB or CMYK should be used.
- The text field 'Title page'- should include the title of the article,
- The text field 'Key words' - 3-10 key words or phrases, in accordance with Medical Subject Headings Index Medicus if possible,
- The text field 'Abstract' - should not exceed 250 words. The abstracts of original articles should consist of four distinct paragraphs: Background, Methods, Results and Conclusion
Authors' full names, academic degrees and affiliations should be given. Corresponding author's full name, academic degree, phone number and e-mail address should be placed at the bottom of the article, along with the information concerning grants, other forms of financial support and conflicts of interest.
The text - the original articles should be divided into the following sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. The review articles can be divided into by different manner. The articles should not exceed the following limitations: an original work - 3000 words, a review - 6000 words, a case report - 2000 words, a letter - 1000 words. The aforementioned limits do not include abstracts, tables and references. Any additional information and acknowledgements may be placed between the text and references.
References - should be numbered consecutively according to their appearance in the text (not the alphabetical order) and should include: a consecutive reference number, the names of all of authors, a title, a journal title abbreviated and abridged in accordance with Index Medicus, a year, a volume (arabic numerals), the number of the first and the last page. Each reference number in text should be enclosed by square brackets. Names of the authors (if there are up to six authors - list all, if there are seven or more - list three first with adnotation 'et al.'. Please do not use the phrases 'in press', 'in preparation', 'oral communication' - they can be used in reasonable cases in a text.
Kessel A., Bamberger E., Toubi E.: Tacrolimus in the treatment of severe chronic idiopathic urticaria: an open-label prospective study. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2005; 52: 145-148.
The consecutive reference number, the author, the title, the editor, the place and the year of publication should be given. Reference to a specific chapter should include: the name of the author and his initials, the chapter title, pages, name of the author (editor) of the book and his initials, the editor, the year and place of the publication. An example (the author and the editor are different):
- Fernandes L.B., Henry PJ., Goldie R.G. Pharmacology and Therapeutics of Asthma and COPD. Page C.P., Barnes P.J., Springer, Heidelberg 2004; 20-31.
An example (the author is the editor):
- Morice A.H., Bush A. Cough. Current Medical Literature Ltd, London 2003; 34-38.
- Webpage citations
-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Childhood vaccination programmes. 2011 [cited 11.07.2012]. Available from: http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext
-Van Lier E.A., Havelaar A.H., Nanda A.: The burden of infectious diseases in Europe: a pilot study. 2007 [cited 12.07.2012]. Available from: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=751
Please upload articles submitted by you for publication onto the website after registering in and logging in as an authors. To create an account you must register by clicking the link 'log in' in the upper right website corner.
The editors require that Authors should reveal individual co-authors’ contribution to the publication (a statement of individual affiliations and contribution should be provided, i.e. the information who is the author of the concepts, assumptions, methods, protocol, etc. used to prepare the publication). Such statement should be sent as a .doc file to our Office via e-mail (email@example.com). However, the author submitting the manuscript will chiefly be held responsible.
(based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE,s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)
JHPOR is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher. In particular, Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication. Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
b)the paper has been approved by all co-authors as well as the authorities of the institutions where the research was performed;
c) author(s) consent(s) to the automatic and free-of-charge copyright transfer to the Copyright holder when the article is accepted for publication;
d) all sources of financial support have been disclosed;
e) author(s) is/are familiar with the Editorial Policy and the Information for Authors and is /are willing to obey them;
f) authors(s) have/has read and approved the information concerning the conflict of interest, the copyright transfer and reprints permission.