INSTRUCTION TO AUTHOR

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research

1. About These Instructions

Authors should read these instructions carefully before submitting a manuscript. Submissions that do not satisfy the journal’s minimum administrative, ethical, and scientific requirements may be returned for correction before editorial assessment.

The journal considers manuscripts relating to pharmaceutical sciences, pharmacology, pharmacognosy, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmaceutical analysis, biotechnology, biomedical sciences, botany, zoology, life sciences, and related interdisciplinary fields.

Submission of a manuscript implies that:

The work is original.
The manuscript has not been published previously, except as an abstract, thesis, conference presentation, registered report, or disclosed preprint where permitted.
The manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.
All authors have read and approved the submitted version.
All persons listed as authors satisfy the journal’s authorship requirements.
Necessary ethical approvals and permissions have been obtained.
The authors agree to participate in the journal’s editorial and peer-review process.

2. Manuscript Categories

2.1 Original Research Article

Original Research Articles should present complete reports of original and scientifically valid research.

Research articles should:

Address a clearly stated research question or objective.
Use an appropriate and adequately described methodology.
Present original data that have not been published previously.
Include appropriate controls and statistical analysis.
Report results transparently, including negative or non-significant findings where relevant.
Discuss the findings in relation to existing evidence.
Clearly state the study limitations.
Avoid conclusions that extend beyond the data.

The journal considers experimental, preclinical, clinical, formulation-development, analytical, phytochemical, computational, molecular, microbiological, pharmacological, biotechnological, and other relevant research articles.

Recommended length

Main text: approximately 3,000–8,000 words.
Abstract: up to 250 words.
References: as required to support the study.
Tables and figures: limited to those necessary to present the findings clearly.

Longer manuscripts may be considered when scientifically justified.

2.2 Review Article

Review Articles should provide a comprehensive, critical, and scientifically balanced synthesis of the available literature.

A review article should not merely compile information from previously published papers. It should:

Define a clear objective and scope.
Explain how the literature was identified and selected.
Critically compare findings from different studies.
Distinguish established evidence from preliminary or conflicting evidence.
Identify methodological weaknesses in the available literature.
Discuss important controversies and unresolved questions.
Identify research gaps.
Provide evidence-based future directions.
Include appropriate summary tables, comparative tables, diagrams, or mechanistic figures.

Recent literature should receive appropriate emphasis. However, important older landmark studies should also be included where necessary. Review articles are not restricted to work originating from the principal author’s research group.

Recommended length

Main text: approximately 4,000–12,000 words.
Abstract: up to 250 words.
References: sufficient to provide balanced and comprehensive coverage.
Tables and figures: appropriate to the scope and depth of the review.

Review articles may undergo detailed editorial revision before being sent for external peer review. Authors may be asked to add critical analysis, comparative tables, diagrams, updated references, limitations, research gaps, and future perspectives.

2.3 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses should follow the applicable PRISMA reporting requirements.

The manuscript should include:

A clearly formulated review question.
Eligibility criteria.
Complete information sources and databases searched.
The date of the final search.
Reproducible search strategies.
Study-selection procedures.
Data-extraction methods.
Risk-of-bias or quality-assessment methods.
Methods of evidence synthesis.
A PRISMA flow diagram.
A completed PRISMA checklist.
Protocol-registration details, where applicable.
Assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity, where applicable.
Limitations of the review process and evidence base.

The main PRISMA guideline is intended to improve complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews, and its resources include a checklist, expanded checklist, abstract checklist, and flow-diagram templates.

2.4 Short Communication

Short Communications may report concise but scientifically important findings that do not require presentation as a full-length research article.

They should contain:

A focused objective.
Sufficient methodological detail.
Clearly presented results.
A concise discussion.
Appropriate ethical and statistical information.

Short Communications should not be used to divide one complete study into several small publications.

2.5 Case Report or Case Series

Case Reports should describe clinically, pharmacologically, diagnostically, or toxicologically significant cases with clear educational value.

Authors should:

Follow the CARE reporting guideline where applicable.
Obtain written informed consent for publication.
Remove unnecessary identifying information.
Include a timeline where it improves understanding.
Explain the novelty and clinical relevance of the case.
Avoid claims of causality that cannot be established from an individual case.

2.6 Editorials, Commentaries and Letters

Editorials, Commentaries, and Letters may be considered at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Some articles in these categories may be invited.

3. Editorial and Peer-Review Process

3.1 Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submitted manuscript will first be assessed by the Managing Editor.

The Managing Editor will:

Examine whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope.
Identify the principal subject area.
Check the article category.
Assess administrative and technical completeness.
Examine the minimum scientific and ethical suitability of the submission.
Assign the manuscript to the Associate Managing Editor whose expertise most closely matches the subject.

3.2 Internal Editorial Review

The assigned Associate Managing Editor will undertake a detailed internal editorial assessment.

The manuscript may be returned to the authors for preliminary editorial revision before external peer review. This stage may include revision of:

Title and abstract.
Manuscript organization.
Scientific language.
Methodological reporting.
Tables and figures.
References.
Declarations.
Critical analysis.
Conclusions.
Mandatory submission components.

Review articles may receive extensive editorial comments intended to improve their scientific depth, critical synthesis, figures, tables, and overall publication value.

For original research articles, revision requests will normally be proportionate and achievable. The journal will not ordinarily require expensive additional experiments unless they are essential to establish scientific validity or support the central conclusion.

3.3 External Peer Review

After the internal editorial assessment has been completed satisfactorily, the Associate Managing Editor will identify and invite competent external reviewers.

At least two independent external peer-review reports are normally required before a final scientific decision is made.

Reviewers are selected according to:

Subject expertise.
Relevant research publications.
Familiarity with the methodology.
Independence from the authors.
Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Ability to provide a constructive and evidence-based assessment.

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific content of the reviews and the editor’s independent judgment, rather than only on the numerical recommendations of reviewers.

3.4 Possible Decisions

The journal may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept.
Minor revision.
Major revision.
Reject and invite resubmission.
Reject.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

4. Files Required at Submission

Authors should submit the following files, where applicable:

Cover letter.
Title page.
Main manuscript.
Five highlights.
Graphical abstract.
Figures in high-resolution format.
Supplementary material.
Reporting-guideline checklist.
Ethical approval documentation, if requested.
Permission letters for reproduced or adapted material.
Point-by-point response for revised manuscripts.

For anonymized peer review, author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying information should be confined to the title-page file.

5. Cover Letter

The cover letter should confirm that:

The manuscript is original.
It is not under consideration elsewhere.
All authors have approved the submission.
All authors satisfy the authorship requirements.
Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained where applicable.
Conflicts of interest have been disclosed.
Any preprint or related publication has been identified.
Any use of artificial-intelligence-assisted tools has been disclosed.
The manuscript is appropriate for the journal.

The cover letter should briefly explain the importance of the work and its relevance to the journal’s readers.

6. General Manuscript Preparation

6.1 File Format

Manuscripts should be submitted in an editable Microsoft Word format:

.doc
.docx

A PDF may be submitted as a supplementary viewing copy but should not replace the editable manuscript file.

The requirement for “MS Word 2007” has been discontinued. Authors may use any current word-processing version capable of producing an editable .doc or .docx file.

6.2 Page Format

Use:

A4 page size.
Portrait orientation.
Margins of approximately 2.5 cm or 1 inch.
A clear, readable font such as Times New Roman, Arial, or Calibri.
Font size of 11 or 12 points.
Line spacing of 1.5 or double spacing.
Left-aligned or justified text.
Numbered pages.
Continuous line numbering throughout the manuscript.

Headers and footers should be kept simple. Do not include decorative borders, watermarks, or institutional logos in the manuscript.

6.3 Flexible Initial Formatting

The journal does not require elaborate typesetting at initial submission.

Authors should ensure that:

Headings are clearly distinguishable.
References follow a consistent Vancouver style.
Tables are editable.
Figures are clearly labelled.
All manuscript sections are complete.
The document is suitable for editorial and peer review.

Strict journal styling may be applied during revision or production.

6.4 Language

Manuscripts must be written in clear scientific English.

Authors are responsible for:

Grammar and spelling.
Scientific terminology.
Accuracy of technical expressions.
Consistency of abbreviations.
Clarity and logical flow.

Language-editing services may improve readability, but their use does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Recommended Manuscript Order

The manuscript should normally be arranged as follows:

Title page.
Abstract.
Keywords.
Highlights.
Graphical abstract.
Introduction.
Materials and methods or review methodology.
Results.
Discussion.
Study limitations.
Conclusion.
Acknowledgements.
Author-contribution statement.
Funding statement.
Conflict-of-interest declaration.
Ethics statement.
Consent statement.
Data-availability statement.
Artificial-intelligence-use declaration.
References.
Tables.
Figure legends.
Supplementary-material description.

The order may be adjusted according to the manuscript category.

8. Title Page

The title page must contain:

8.1 Article Title

The title should be:

Concise and informative.
Scientifically accurate.
Written in sentence case or appropriate title case.
Free from unnecessary abbreviations.
Free from unsupported expressions such as “first,” “novel,” “unique,” “breakthrough,” or “highly effective.”

The study design should be identified in the title where appropriate, particularly for randomized trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, observational studies, and case reports.

8.2 Author Names

Provide the full name of each author in the agreed publication order.

Do not include academic degrees, professional titles, or official designations in the author byline.

8.3 Affiliations

A complete affiliation must be provided for every author and should include:

Department, division, or centre.
Institution or organization.
City.
State or province, where applicable.
Postal code.
Country.

Use superscript Arabic numerals to connect authors with their respective affiliations.

8.4 Corresponding Author

Clearly identify one corresponding author and provide:

Full name.
Complete institutional affiliation.
Full postal address.
Valid institutional or professional email address.
Telephone number, where required.
ORCID identifier.

The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal and for ensuring that all authors approve the submission, revisions, authorship details, and final publication.

8.5 Email Addresses

A valid email address must be provided for every co-author during submission.

The journal may contact co-authors to verify:

Authorship.
Approval of submission.
Conflict-of-interest disclosures.
Changes in authorship.
Acceptance of publication conditions.

8.6 ORCID

The ORCID identifier of the corresponding author is strongly recommended and may be made mandatory by the journal. ORCID identifiers should also be provided for all co-authors where available.

8.7 Author Photograph

A passport-size photograph of the corresponding author is not required for regular research or review articles.

An author photograph may be requested separately for invited editorials, interviews, profiles, or special features.

8.8 Additional Title-Page Information

The title page should also state:

Manuscript category.
Running title of no more than approximately 50 characters.
Total word count.
Number of tables.
Number of figures.
Number of supplementary files.

9. Abstract

9.1 Original Research Article

Research articles should normally include a structured abstract of no more than 250 words using the following headings:

Background.
Objective.
Methods.
Results.
Conclusion.

The Results section should include the principal numerical findings where possible.

9.2 Review Article

Review articles should include an abstract containing:

Background.
Objective or scope.
Review approach or literature-search method.
Principal findings or themes.
Conclusion and future perspective.

9.3 Systematic Review

Systematic-review abstracts should follow the PRISMA abstract reporting requirements.

9.4 General Abstract Requirements

The abstract should:

Be understandable independently of the main manuscript.
Avoid references.
Avoid undefined abbreviations.
Avoid excessive background information.
Avoid claims not supported by the manuscript.
Report the main findings rather than stating only that findings were “significant.”

10. Keywords

Provide four to eight keywords immediately after the abstract.

Keywords should:

Represent the principal concepts of the manuscript.
Include important diseases, interventions, compounds, organisms, techniques, or mechanisms.
Use recognized scientific or indexing terminology where possible.
Avoid unnecessary repetition of the complete title.

For biomedical manuscripts, authors are encouraged to consider terminology consistent with Medical Subject Headings where appropriate.

11. Highlights

Exactly five highlights must be submitted for every research and review article.

Each highlight should:

Present one important contribution, result, mechanism, implication, or research gap.
Be written as a clear standalone statement.
Avoid references.
Avoid unexplained abbreviations.
Avoid repeating the manuscript title.
Preferably contain no more than 20–25 words.

Highlights should be submitted on a separate page or as a separate editable file.

12. Graphical Abstract

A graphical abstract is mandatory for research and review articles.

It should:

Present the principal concept, workflow, mechanism, or findings in a single visual summary.
Be scientifically accurate.
Contain minimal text.
Use legible labels.
Avoid excessive decorative elements.
Be understandable without consulting the full manuscript.
Be original or use properly licensed material.
Avoid copyrighted illustrations obtained from websites without permission.

A landscape orientation is preferred. The image should be submitted as a separate high-resolution file, preferably at a minimum of 300 dpi.

Graphical abstracts should not exaggerate the findings or present a computational prediction as experimentally confirmed evidence.

Any use of generative artificial intelligence in producing the graphical abstract must be disclosed.

13. Main Text: Original Research Articles

13.1 Introduction

The Introduction should:

Provide focused scientific background.
Identify the relevant knowledge gap.
Explain the rationale for the study.
Avoid an extensive literature review.
End with a clear objective, research question, or hypothesis.

13.2 Materials and Methods

The Methods section should provide sufficient information to allow readers to understand and, where possible, reproduce the study.

Include, as applicable:

Study design.
Study location and period.
Sample size and its justification.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Experimental groups.
Controls.
Randomization.
Blinding or masking.
Biological materials.
Drug and chemical sources.
Instrument details.
Experimental procedures.
Outcome measures.
Statistical analysis.
Ethical approval.
Software and version numbers.
Data-management procedures.

Established methods may be summarized with appropriate references. Modifications to published methods should be described.

13.3 Results

The Results section should:

Follow a logical order.
Correspond with the stated objectives and methods.
Report all relevant findings.
Include appropriate statistical information.
Avoid interpretation that belongs in the Discussion.
Avoid unnecessary duplication of table and figure contents.
Report negative or non-significant results where relevant.

13.4 Discussion

The Discussion should:

Interpret the principal findings.
Compare the findings with relevant previous studies.
Explain agreements and disagreements with existing evidence.
Discuss possible mechanisms carefully.
Distinguish demonstrated mechanisms from proposed explanations.
Avoid repeating the entire Results section.
Avoid unsupported generalizations.
Discuss the scientific or practical implications.

13.5 Study Limitations

Every research article should include a clear statement of important limitations.

Limitations may relate to:

Sample size.
Study design.
Experimental model.
Control selection.
Duration.
Measurement methods.
Generalizability.
Potential bias.
Statistical power.
Absence of mechanistic validation.

13.6 Conclusion

The conclusion should:

Directly answer the study objective.
Be supported by the reported data.
Avoid repeating the abstract.
Avoid unsupported clinical or therapeutic claims.
Identify appropriate implications or future directions.

14. Main Text: Review Articles

14.1 Introduction

The Introduction should explain:

Why the topic is important.
What is already known.
What remains uncertain.
Why a new review is required.
The precise objective and scope of the review.

14.2 Review Methodology

All review articles should describe how the literature was located and selected.

Narrative reviews should provide, at minimum:

Databases or information sources searched.
Principal search terms.
Approximate period covered.
Date of the most recent search.
Types of studies emphasized.
Important selection or exclusion principles.
Method used to organize and synthesize the evidence.

Systematic reviews must provide a complete reproducible methodology.

Current ICMJE guidance encourages review manuscripts to describe how evidence was located, selected, extracted, and synthesized, and makes this methodological transparency essential for systematic reviews.

14.3 Critical Synthesis

Authors should:

Compare rather than merely list published studies.
Discuss differences in methods, models, doses, populations, and outcomes.
Separate in vitro, in vivo, clinical, computational, and theoretical evidence.
Evaluate the quality and limitations of the available evidence.
Discuss contradictory or negative findings.
Avoid presenting association as causation.
Avoid presenting docking, network pharmacology, or bioinformatics predictions as mechanistic proof without experimental validation.
Identify areas where evidence is insufficient.

14.4 Tables and Figures for Reviews

Review articles should normally include visual synthesis such as:

Comparative evidence tables.
Mechanistic diagrams.
Pathway diagrams.
Classification schemes.
Study-characteristic tables.
Tables comparing compounds, drugs, formulations, models, methods, doses, outcomes, or limitations.
Research-gap frameworks.
Future-direction diagrams.

Figures and tables should add analytical value and should not merely duplicate the text.

14.5 Research Gaps and Future Perspectives

Authors should identify:

Important unanswered questions.
Methodological weaknesses.
Translational barriers.
Safety or regulatory gaps.
Evidence needed for clinical application.
Specific future experimental or clinical priorities.

Generic statements such as “more studies are required” should be avoided unless accompanied by an explanation of what studies are needed and why.

15. Reporting Guidelines

Authors must follow the reporting guideline appropriate to the study design.

Examples include:

Study design	Reporting guideline
Randomized controlled trial	CONSORT 2025
Trial protocol	SPIRIT
Systematic review or meta-analysis	PRISMA 2020
Scoping review	PRISMA-ScR
Observational study	STROBE
Animal experiment	ARRIVE 2.0
Diagnostic-accuracy study	STARD
Case report	CARE
Qualitative research	COREQ or SRQR
Economic evaluation	CHEERS
Prediction-model study	TRIPOD
Quality-improvement study	SQUIRE

CONSORT 2025 is the current updated reporting guideline for randomized trials. ARRIVE 2.0 identifies an “Essential 10” for transparent animal-research reporting, including study design, sample size, randomization, blinding, outcome measures, statistical methods, animal details, procedures, and results.

Authors should consult the EQUATOR Network to identify the most appropriate reporting guideline and submit a completed checklist when requested.

16. Ethical Requirements

16.1 Human Research

Research involving human participants, identifiable human materials, or identifiable data must:

Receive approval from an appropriate institutional ethics committee or review board.
State the name of the approving committee.
State the approval or reference number.
Describe how informed consent was obtained.
Comply with applicable national and institutional regulations.
Be conducted in accordance with the current principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Current ICMJE guidance states that human research should comply with the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2024 and should receive approval from an independent review body.

16.2 Informed Consent for Publication

Written consent for publication is required when a participant may be identifiable from:

Photographs.
Clinical images.
Case descriptions.
Pedigrees.
Videos.
Genetic information.
Rare clinical characteristics.

Removing only the eye region from a photograph may not provide adequate anonymization.

16.3 Animal Research

Animal studies must include:

Name of the approving Institutional Animal Ethics Committee.
Approval number.
Date of approval, where available.
Details of applicable national and institutional animal-welfare requirements.
Information on anesthesia, analgesia, humane endpoints, and euthanasia where relevant.
Reporting according to ARRIVE 2.0.

For research conducted in India, applicable CPCSEA and Institutional Animal Ethics Committee requirements should be followed.

16.4 Clinical-Trial Registration

Clinical trials should be registered prospectively in a publicly accessible and recognized clinical-trial registry.

The manuscript should report:

Registry name.
Registration number.
Date of registration.
Whether registration occurred before participant enrolment.
Any changes to the registered protocol or outcomes.

The study protocol, statistical-analysis plan, and data-sharing statement should be supplied where applicable.

16.5 Plant-Based Research

Research involving medicinal plants should report:

Accepted scientific name.
Author citation where appropriate.
Family.
Plant part used.
Collection location and date.
Authentication method.
Name and affiliation of the authenticating expert.
Voucher-specimen number.
Herbarium or repository in which the specimen was deposited.
Extraction procedure.
Extraction yield.
Standardization or chemical characterization where applicable.

16.6 Cell-Line Studies

Authors should report:

Complete cell-line name.
Source or repository.
Catalogue number, where applicable.
Authentication procedure.
Mycoplasma-testing status.
Passage range.
Culture conditions.
Biological and technical replicate numbers.

16.7 Microorganisms and Biological Materials

Authors should provide strain identifiers, accession numbers, source information, biosafety approvals, and applicable material-transfer permissions.

17. Statistical Reporting

Statistical methods should be described sufficiently for evaluation.

Authors should report:

Statistical tests used.
Software and version.
Definition of the experimental unit.
Sample size for each analysis.
Number of independent biological replicates.
Number of technical replicates.
Method used to assess distributional assumptions.
Adjustments for multiple comparisons, where applicable.
Exact P values where practical.
Effect sizes and confidence intervals where appropriate.
Methods used to address missing data and outliers.
Whether analyses were pre-specified or exploratory.

Authors should not describe a result as statistically significant without reporting the corresponding statistical evidence.

Statements such as “experiments were performed in triplicate” should clarify whether the triplicates were independent biological experiments or repeated technical measurements.

18. Author Contributions and Authorship

18.1 Authorship Criteria

All listed authors should satisfy recognized authorship principles by having:

Made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work.
Drafted the manuscript or critically reviewed it for important intellectual content.
Approved the final version.
Agreed to be accountable for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

These four authorship criteria are consistent with current ICMJE recommendations. Persons who do not satisfy all authorship criteria should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.

18.2 CRediT Contribution Statement

Authors should provide a contribution statement using the CRediT taxonomy where applicable.

The 14 CRediT roles are:

Conceptualization.
Data curation.
Formal analysis.
Funding acquisition.
Investigation.
Methodology.
Project administration.
Resources.
Software.
Supervision.
Validation.
Visualization.
Writing—original draft.
Writing—review and editing.

CRediT is intended to make individual contributions more transparent and improve attribution and accountability.

18.3 Changes in Authorship

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must include:

A written explanation.
Written agreement from all existing authors.
Written agreement from the author being added or removed.
A revised contribution statement.

Authorship changes will not normally be permitted after acceptance except under exceptional and fully documented circumstances.

19. Funding

All sources of financial or material support must be disclosed.

State:

Funder name.
Grant number.
Recipient of the funding.
Role of the funder in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions.

Where no specific funding was received, state:

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

20. Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial relationships that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the work.

Examples include:

Employment.
Consultancy.
Honoraria.
Stock ownership.
Patents.
Paid testimony.
Advisory roles.
Personal relationships.
Academic competition.
Intellectual or professional conflicts.

Transparent disclosure allows readers to assess the relevance of these relationships.

Where no conflict exists, state:

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

21. Data and Materials Availability

Every research article should include a Data Availability Statement.

Examples include:

Publicly available data

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the present study are available in the [repository name] repository under [persistent identifier].

Data available on reasonable request

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to applicable ethical and legal restrictions.

Data included in the article

All data supporting the findings of this study are included in the article and its supplementary material.

Restricted data

The data are not publicly available because they contain confidential or potentially identifiable participant information. Access may be considered following appropriate ethical approval and a data-use agreement.

Authors should retain original data and be prepared to provide relevant data, raw images, laboratory records, or analytical outputs if requested by the journal.

Clinical trials should provide a detailed data-sharing statement where applicable.

22. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors must disclose whether artificial-intelligence-assisted technologies were used in preparing the submitted work.

22.1 Permitted Uses

AI-assisted tools may be used, subject to human verification, for activities such as:

Language improvement.
Grammar correction.
Readability enhancement.
Coding assistance.
Literature organization.
Image or graphical-assistance tasks where scientifically appropriate and fully disclosed.

22.2 Author Responsibility

Authors remain fully responsible for:

Accuracy.
Originality.
References.
Interpretation.
Absence of plagiarism.
Confidentiality.
Integrity of text, data, and images.
Compliance with copyright and ethical requirements.

AI-assisted tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility or accountability for the work. Current ICMJE guidance requires authors to disclose the use of such technologies, critically review their output, and remain responsible for all submitted content.

22.3 Required Declaration

Where AI was used, authors should state:

Name and version of the tool.
Purpose for which it was used.
Section of the manuscript affected.
Nature of human verification and editing.

Example:

During manuscript preparation, the authors used [tool and version] for language editing. All output was critically reviewed and revised by the authors, who accept full responsibility for the final content.

Where AI was not used, the journal may request the following statement:

The authors declare that no generative artificial-intelligence tool was used to generate scientific content, data, references, or conclusions in this manuscript.

Standard spelling and grammar-checking software need not normally be declared.

23. Tables

Tables should:

Be created using the editable table function in Microsoft Word.
Be numbered consecutively using Arabic numerals.
Be cited in numerical order in the text.
Have a concise and informative title.
Use clear column headings.
Define all abbreviations in footnotes.
State units of measurement.
Explain statistical symbols.
Be understandable without extensive reference to the main text.
Avoid unnecessary vertical lines and decorative shading.
Avoid duplicating information already presented in figures or text.

Tables should not be submitted as screenshots or images.

Large tables may be submitted as supplementary material where appropriate.

A table may extend beyond one printed page when scientifically necessary. The previous restriction that every table must fit within one A4 page is therefore removed.

24. Figures and Artwork

24.1 General Requirements

Figures should:

Be numbered consecutively.
Be cited in numerical order.
Contain legible labels.
Use consistent terminology and units.
Include scale bars where relevant.
Explain symbols, colours, and abbreviations in the legend.
Avoid unnecessary three-dimensional effects or decorative backgrounds.
Remain understandable when printed or viewed by readers with colour-vision limitations.

Figures may be embedded at the appropriate location in the manuscript for review. High-resolution individual files should also be provided when requested.

24.2 Accepted Formats

Preferred formats include:

TIFF.
JPEG.
PNG.
EPS.
PDF for vector artwork.
Editable Office files for simple graphs or diagrams, where appropriate.

GIF is not recommended for publication-quality scientific artwork.

24.3 Resolution

Recommended minimum resolutions at final publication size are:

Colour or grayscale photographs: 300 dpi.
Combination artwork: approximately 500–600 dpi.
Line art: approximately 1,000 dpi or vector format.

These specifications are consistent with contemporary publisher artwork guidance.

24.4 Figure Legends

Figure legends should be placed after the reference list or immediately below the corresponding figure during initial submission.

Each legend should:

Begin with the figure number.
Provide a concise title.
Explain the figure sufficiently.
Define abbreviations.
Identify statistical tests and significance symbols.
State the number of observations where relevant.
Include attribution and permission information for reused material.

24.5 Multi-panel Figures

Multi-panel figures should:

Be assembled into a single figure file.
Use consistent panel sizes.
Label panels clearly as A, B, C, and so forth.
Explain each panel in the legend.
Avoid duplication or inappropriate reuse of image regions.

24.6 Image Integrity

Authors must not:

Selectively enhance, obscure, move, remove, or introduce image features.
Splice gel or blot images without clear indication.
Reuse the same image to represent different experimental conditions.
Duplicate image regions.
Alter contrast in a manner that changes scientific interpretation.

Global adjustments to brightness or contrast may be acceptable only when applied uniformly and when they do not obscure or misrepresent information.

Editors may request original, uncropped, and unprocessed image files.

24.7 Previously Published Material

Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to reproduce or adapt copyrighted material.

The figure legend should state:

Original source.
Copyright holder.
Whether the material was reproduced or adapted.
Permission or licence information.

A citation alone does not necessarily replace the need for copyright permission.

25. Chemical Structures and Schemes

Chemical structures should be prepared using appropriate chemical-drawing software, such as ChemDraw or an equivalent program.

Authors should ensure:

Correct chemical structures.
Consistent atom labels.
Correct stereochemistry.
Legible bond representation.
Consistent structure size.
Sequential compound numbering.
Availability of editable or vector files where possible.

Rigid software-specific bond lengths and line-width settings are not required at initial submission. The principal requirement is that structures are scientifically correct, consistent, editable where possible, and suitable for publication.

26. Nomenclature, Units and Abbreviations

Authors should:

Use internationally accepted scientific nomenclature.
Use SI units.
Define abbreviations at first use.
Avoid unnecessary abbreviations.
Use generic drug names where possible.
Provide manufacturer and location details for specialized commercial products where relevant.
Italicize genus and species names.
Follow accepted gene and protein nomenclature.
Distinguish clearly between genes, proteins, receptors, and pathways.
Provide database accession numbers where applicable.

Plant names should be verified using an accepted taxonomic database.

27. References

27.1 Citation Style

The journal follows the Vancouver numbered-reference style.

References should:

Be numbered consecutively in the order of first citation.
Be cited using Arabic numerals according to journal style.
Use the same reference number for repeated citations.
Prefer original research sources over secondary citations.
Include DOI identifiers where available.
Include publication status for preprints.
Avoid predatory or unverifiable sources.
Avoid citing retracted articles unless the retraction itself is being discussed.
Be checked carefully against the original source.

Current ICMJE guidance recommends citing original research whenever possible and clearly identifying preprints as preprints.

27.2 Journal-Article Example

Bahadur S, Roy A, Baghel P, Choudhury A, Saha S, Chanda R. Formulation and evaluation of glipizide tablets utilizing Hibiscus rosa-sinensis leaves mucilage. Indones J Pharm. 2018;29:23–28. doi: [insert DOI where available].

27.3 Book Example

Brunton LL, Hilal-Dandan R, Knollmann BC, editors. Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 14th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2023.

27.4 Book-Chapter Example

Author AA, Author BB. Chapter title. In: Editor AA, Editor BB, editors. Book title. Edition. City: Publisher; Year. p. xx–xx.

27.5 Website or Database Example

Organization name. Title of webpage or database entry [Internet]. Place of publication: Publisher; publication year [cited Year Month Day]. Available from: complete webpage address.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of every reference.

28. Supplementary Material

Supplementary material may include:

Extended methods.
Additional tables.
Additional figures.
Raw or processed datasets.
Video or audio files.
Search strategies.
Reporting checklists.
Statistical code.
Spectral data.
Molecular-docking or simulation files.
Additional validation results.

Each supplementary item should:

Be cited in the main manuscript.
Have a clear title.
Be numbered consistently.
Include sufficient explanation.
Avoid material essential to understanding the primary findings unless the journal permits it.

29. Similarity, Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

All manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software.

Editorial assessment will consider the nature and location of matching text rather than relying only on an overall similarity percentage.

The following are unacceptable:

Unattributed copying.
Mosaic plagiarism.
Duplicate publication.
Simultaneous submission.
Substantial text recycling without disclosure.
Data fabrication.
Data falsification.
Manipulated images.
Citation manipulation.
Undisclosed redundant publication.

Authors must disclose closely related manuscripts, conference papers, preprints, or earlier reports when submitting the manuscript.

COPE guidance and journal procedures may be followed when suspected plagiarism or other publication misconduct is identified.

30. Preprints

The existence of a preprint does not automatically disqualify a manuscript, subject to journal policy.

Authors should:

Disclose the preprint during submission.
Provide its persistent identifier.
Avoid submitting a version that has already undergone formal journal publication.
Update the preprint record with the final journal citation after publication where permitted.
Explain any substantial differences between the preprint and submitted manuscript.

The final decision regarding preprint eligibility rests with the editor.

31. Revised Manuscripts

A revised submission should include:

Clean revised manuscript.
Marked or tracked-changes manuscript.
Detailed point-by-point response.
Revised figures and tables.
Updated supplementary material.
Updated declarations where required.

The response document should reproduce each editor and reviewer comment followed by the author’s response.

Authors should:

State exactly what was changed.
Provide manuscript page and line numbers.
Respond respectfully and scientifically.
Explain clearly when a suggestion was not followed.
Avoid responding only with “corrected” or “done.”

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers.

32. Acceptance and Publication

Acceptance is subject to:

Satisfactory scientific evaluation.
Completion of peer review.
Resolution of editorial comments.
Ethical and authorship verification.
Similarity and integrity checks.
Receipt of complete publication files.

After acceptance, authors may receive proofs for correction.

Proof corrections should generally be limited to:

Typographical errors.
Formatting errors.
Author-name or affiliation errors.
Production-related problems.

Major changes to the scientific content, authorship, data, or conclusions are not normally permitted at proof stage.

33. Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Issues

Authors are expected to cooperate with the journal when concerns arise after publication.

Depending on the nature of the issue, the journal may publish:

A correction.
An expression of concern.
A retraction.
A replacement or updated version.
A response to post-publication commentary.

Serious ethical or integrity concerns may be referred to the authors’ institutions or other appropriate authorities.

34. Mandatory Submission Checklist

Before submission, authors should confirm that the following have been provided:

Authorship and administration

Complete title page.
Full names of all authors.
Complete affiliations.
Corresponding-author details.
Email address of every co-author.
ORCID information where available.
Cover letter.
Approval of all authors.

Manuscript components

Abstract.
Four to eight keywords.
Exactly five highlights.
Graphical abstract.
Complete main text.
Study limitations.
Conclusion.
References.
Tables and figures.
Supplementary files where applicable.

Declarations

Author-contribution statement.
Funding statement.
Conflict-of-interest declaration.
Ethics statement.
Informed-consent statement.
Consent-for-publication statement.
Data-availability statement.
AI-use declaration.
Acknowledgements where applicable.

Study-specific requirements

Clinical-trial registration number.
Reporting-guideline checklist.
PRISMA flow diagram.
ARRIVE checklist.
Plant voucher number.
Cell-line authentication information.
Permissions for copyrighted material.
High-resolution figures.

Submissions that do not contain the mandatory components may be returned before editorial assessment.

35. Final Responsibility of Authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and completeness of their submission.

Editorial review, peer review, language correction, or production editing does not transfer responsibility for the manuscript from the authors to the journal.

The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors:

Approve the submitted and revised versions.
Agree with the authorship order.
Accept responsibility for their contributions.
Approve the final version for publication.