Instructions for Authors
Abstract in English needs to be submitted with the manuscript.
Abstract of original papers must consists of 5 separate parts introduced by separate subheadings in the following order: Background, Objectives, Material and Methods, Results, Conclusions. Abstract of original papers should contain from 200 to 300 words. All abbreviations used in the text should be explained in the article.
Abstracts of reviews and clinical cases are unstructured and should contain from 150 to 250 words. All abbreviations used in the text should be explained in the article.
Abstract should be followed by 3–5 key words written in English, and recommended by the "Index Medicus Subject Headings": MeSH (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html).
Manuscripts should be submitted in the following formats: doc, docx, rtf. The total number of words in review papers should not exceed 6,000 words, and in original papers 5,000 words. Original papers should must consists of 5 separate parts in the following order: Background, Objectives, Material and Methods, Results, Conclusions. References to literature, figures and tables should be placed in the order of their citation in the text. The Author(s) should not use italics, bold or underlined words in the texts. Please use only generic names of drugs. Laboratory values should be expressed using the International System of Units (SI). The Author(s) should provide short title that does not exceeds 45 characters and spaces. The Author(s) should disclose all financial and material support.
The conclusions should not be presented as a list with bullet points. In case of reviews systematic literature review are preferred. In clinical cases the Author(s) should separate the introduction, case report and discussion.
It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure the accuracy of all references according to AMA citation style. References should be limited only to the most recent positions and directly connected to the presented topic. References should be identified by Arabic numerals in superscript and numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the manuscript. Abbreviations for journal names should be cited according to Index Medicus. If a journal is not listed in Index Medicus, its full name should be given.
The total number of references:
- review paper – 50
- original paper – 30
- clinical case – 30
Acknowledgments should be placed at the end of the article (before references) in a separate section. They should list people who have considerably contributed to the paper preparation (e.g. helped with the acquisition of data, made corrections, linguistic edits).
Tables should be placed in separate files. References to Tables should be written in Arabic numerals and placed according to the sequence of citing them in the manuscript. Allowed formats: xls, xlsx, doc, docx.
Figures should be placed in separate files. References to Figures should be written in Arabic numerals and placed according to the sequence of citing them in the manuscript. Allowed formats: tiff, cdr, eps, jpg, png (minimum resolution 300 dpi). Descriptions of Figures should be placed in the main text.
Original papers should have no more than 12 Authors, reviews and clinical cases no more than 2 Authors from the same department.
The authorship should be based on the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
- Final approval of the version to be published.
Authors should meet all three (3) above criteria. If a large, multi-center group conducted the research, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. The Author submitting a multi-author manuscript should establish the order of authorship, provide all individual authors of the particular group, as well as provide the group's name. All those designated as authors should meet all criteria for authorship, and all who meet the criteria should be identified as authors. The contribution of each Author must be documented to the extent to take the public responsibility for appropriate portions, the content and the conflict of interests. Authors who do not meet all three criteria of authorship should be acknowledged (prior to their written consent).
All Authors who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors and their authorship should be disclosed in accordance with the following list: A – research concept and design; B – collection and/or assembly of data; C – data analysis and interpretation; D – writing the article; E – critical revision of the article; F – final approval of article.
Authors submitting their manuscripts to Wroclaw University Press journals are obliged to use a unique ORCID number (Open Researcher and Contributor ID). It is a popular digital tool allowing for the identification of the author and their research work in scientific communication. You can register for an ORCID number for free at: https://orcid.org/.
The reviewing process
Each manuscript is reviewed by two (2) independent reviewers. Reviews are based on the, so-called, double-blind review policy. The names of reviewers of each publication are not disclosed. The manuscript is qualified for printing after obtaining two (2) positive reviews. The list of reviewers is posted on the Journal’s website and once a year in the last issue of the journal.
Procedures securing the authenticity of publications
The Editors actively combat all forms of scientific misconduct and the lack of respect for good manners in science (www.publicationethics.org). An example of such practice is a situation when the Author’s contribution was minimal or non-existent but he or she is still listed as the co-author (guest authorship) or if he or she contributed significantly but without disclosing their involvement (ghostwriting). To combat such practices the Editors have taken the following measures:
- all co-authors should provide a written statement about the originality of the manuscript;
- all co-authors should disclose their contribution to the manuscript;
- the originality of the manuscript is assessed by two (2) expert reviewers, the theme editor, a language editor (including a native speaker), and the editor-in-chief;
- the manuscript is verified by a web-based plagiarism program so as to detect any form of scientific misconduct.
The Autor(s) are also required to disclose the sources of the funding of the study, and the input of groups and other subjects (financial disclosure). In case of suspected plagiarism or other scientific misconduct, the Editors ask the first or the last Author of the manuscript for clarifications, at the same time putting the preparation of the manuscript on hold. The Editors decide the final fate of the manuscript. The Editors may notify the employer of the first or the last Author if they suspect committing scientific misconduct, or they may refer the matter for further clarification directly to the appropriate ethics committee. If someone outside the editorial team raised the suspicion of scientific misconduct, that person shall be notified of the action taken. The fact that the manuscript has been published does not mean that plagiarism or scientific misconduct have not been committed.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Journal Dental and Medical Problems has adopted and applies the rules of publication ethics in accordance with COPE guidelines (Committee on Publication Ethics).