The Editorial Process

A manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it is being submitted to Education in the Health Professions alone at that point in time and has not been published anywhere, simultaneously submitted, or already accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal expects that authors would authorize one of them to correspond with the Journal for all matters related to the manuscript. All manuscripts received will be acknowledged. Upon submission, editors review all submitted manuscripts initially for suitability for formal review. Manuscripts with insufficient originality, contain serious scientific or technical flaws, are poorly written/prepared, or lack a significant message will be rejected before proceeding for formal peer-review. Manuscripts that are unlikely to be of interest to Education in the Health Professions readers also are liable to be rejected at this stage.

Manuscripts received from Editorial Board members will be screened by the Editor in Chief and sent to external peer reviewers. The editorial board members who are authors will be excluded from publication decisions.

Manuscripts that are found suitable for publication in Education in the Health Professions are sent to two or more expert reviewers. During submission, the contributor is requested to provide names of two or three qualified reviewers who have expertise in the subject of the submitted manuscript. Suggested reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the contributor(s) or otherwise have a conflict of interest that could bias the review. The selection of these reviewers is at the sole discretion of the handling editor. The journal follows a double-blind review process, wherein the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity. Every manuscript is also assigned to a member of the editorial team, who based on the comments from the external reviewers makes a final decision on the manuscript. Reviewers provide a detailed report to the editors and recommend one of the following outcomes:

1. Accept the paper
2. Accept after minor modifications
3. Reconsider after major revisions
4. Reject the paper

The comments and suggestions received from reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author. If required, the author is requested to provide a point by point response to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. This process is repeated until reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript. Either the Editor-in-Chief or an Executive Editor will make a final decision on each paper’s acceptability for publication in EHP based on his own review, the Associate Editor’s review and the external peer reviews. The ultimate responsibility for any decision lies with the Editor-in-Chief, to whom any appeals should be addressed.  

Manuscripts accepted for publication are copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author. The corresponding author is expected to return the corrected proofs within three days. It may not be possible to incorporate corrections received after that period. The whole process of submission of the manuscript to final decision and sending and receiving proofs is completed online. To achieve faster and greater dissemination of knowledge and information, the journal publishes articles online as ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately upon acceptance.

Processes for appeals 

The authors do have the right to appeal if they have a genuine cause to believe that the editorial board has wrongly rejected the paper. If the authors wish to appeal the decision, they should email the editorial office (email: [email protected]) explaining in detail the reason for the appeal. The appeals will be acknowledged by the editorial office and will be investigated in an unbiased manner. The processing of appeals will be done within 6 – 8 weeks. While under appeal, the said manuscript should not be submitted to other journals. The final decision rests with the Editor in Chief of the journal. Second appeals are not considered.

Anti-Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism includes duplicate publication of the author’s own work, in whole or in part without proper citation or mispresenting other’s ideas, words, and other creative expression as one’s own. The Journal follows strict anti-plagiarism policy. All manuscripts submitted to Education in the Health Professions undergoes plagiarism check with commercially available software. Based on the extent of plagiarism, authors may be asked to address any minor duplication, or similarity with the previous published work. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Journal will investigate. If plagiarism is established, the journal will notify the authors’ institution and funding bodies and will retract the plagiarised article. To report plagiarism, contact the journal office (email: [email protected]) 

Authorship Criteria

Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to each of the three components mentioned below: 

1. Concept and design of study, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. Final approval of the version to be published.

Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of the manuscript. The order of naming for the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and writing the manuscript. Once submitted the order cannot be changed without written consent of all the contributors. The journal prescribes a maximum number of authors for manuscripts depending upon the type of manuscript, its scope and number of institutions involved (see below). The authors should provide a justification if the number of authors exceeds these limits.

Contribution Details

Contributors should provide a description of contributions made by each of them towards the manuscript. Description should be divided in the following categories, as applicable: concept, design, literature search, data acquisition, data analysis, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing and manuscript review. Authors' contributions will be printed along with the article. One or more author should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole from inception to published article and should be designated as 'guarantor'. 

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

A conflict of interest exists whenever an individual has financial interests or personal relationships that might consciously or unconsciously influence his or her decisions. Conflicts of interest are ubiquitous and cannot be completely eliminated; they do not, by themselves, indicate improper behavior, wrongdoing, or scientific misconduct. Financial relationships are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and include, among other things, ownership, employment, consultancies, honoraria, paid expert testimony, grants, patents, stock ownership or options, and service as an officer or board member. Other types of conflicts of interest include personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs. 

Authors

All authors must disclose any and all conflicts of interest they may have with publication of the manuscript or an institution or product that is mentioned in the manuscript and/or is important to the outcome of the study presented. Authors should also disclose conflicts of interest with products that compete with those mentioned in their manuscript. The editors reserve the right to reject any manuscript
because of conflicts of interest.

Peer-Reviewers

Reviewers will be asked at the time they are asked to critique a manuscript if they have conflicts of interest that could complicate their review. Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they are reviewing before its publication to further their own interests. 

Editors and Journal Staff

Editors who make decisions about manuscripts will recuse themselves if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Other editorial staff members who participate in editorial decisions must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests or other conflicts (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists. No member of the editorial staff is permitted to use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. 

Additionally, EHP recognizes the need for editorial independence and grants the Editor-in-Chief full authority over the editorial content of the journal. Opinions and statements expressed in the Journal are those of contributors and do not represent the official policy of EHP unless stated so. Although North Carolina State University's College of Veterinary Medicine sponsors the Journal in collaboration with Wolters-Kluwer and MedKnow, no member of the sponsoring institution interferes in the selection, evaluation or editing of any article published in EHP. This includes both direct interference and indirect interference by creating an environment that strongly influences decisions of the Editor-in-Chief.

Submission of Manuscripts

All manuscripts must be submitted online through the website http://www.journalonweb.com/ehp. First time users will have to register at this site. Registered authors can keep track of their articles after logging into the site using their user name and password.

The journal does not charge for submission and processing of the manuscripts.

If you experience any problems, please contact the editorial office by e-mail at [email protected].

The submitted manuscripts that are not as per the “Instructions to Authors” will be returned to the authors for technical correction before they undergo editorial/peer-review. Generally, the manuscript should be submitted in the form of two separate files:

[1] Title Page/First Page File/Cover Letter:

This file should provide:

1. The type of manuscript (original article, short report, methodology, viewpoint, etc.), title of the manuscript, running title, names of all authors/ contributors (with their highest academic degrees, designation and affiliations) and name(s) of department(s) and/or institution(s) to which the work should be credited. All information which can reveal your identity should be here. Use text/rtf/doc files. Do not zip the files.
2. The total number of pages, total number of photographs and word counts separately for abstract and for the text (excluding the references, tables and abstract), word counts for introduction + discussion if an original article;
3. Source(s) of support in the form of grants, equipment, and/or drugs;
4. Acknowledgement, if any. One or more statements should specify 1) contributions that need acknowledging but do not justify authorship, such as general support by a departmental chair; 2) acknowledgments of technical help; and 3) acknowledgments of financial and material support, which should specify the nature of the support. This should be included on the title page of the manuscript and not in the main article file.
5. If the manuscript was presented as part at a meeting, the organization, place, and exact date on which it was read. Please provide a full statement to the editor about all submissions and previous reports that might be regarded as redundant publication of the same or very similar work. Any such work should be referred to specifically, and referenced in the new paper. Copies of such material should be included with the submitted paper, to help the editor decide how to handle the matter.
6. Conflicts of Interest of each author/ contributor. A statement of financial or other relationships that might lead to a conflict of interest. 
7. Criteria for inclusion in the authors’/ contributors’ list.
8. A statement that the manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, that the requirements for authorship as stated earlier in this document have been met, and that each author believes that the manuscript represents honest work.
9. The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the corresponding author, who is responsible for communicating with the other authors about revisions and final approval of the proofs, if that information is not included on the manuscript itself; and
10. The Cover Letter should also provide an "elevator speech" that outlines to the editors why the submission should be considered for publication in EHP. Although the information will differ depending on submission types, authors should be prepared to indicate, for example, what the submission adds to the literature; what features of the submission are particularly novel/unique; why/how the submission will be useful for EHP readers; etc.

[2] Blinded Article file: The main text of the article, beginning from Abstract and ending at References (including tables) should be in this file. The file must not contain any mention of the authors' names, initials, institution(s) at which the study was done, or acknowledgements. Page headers/running title can include the title but not the authors' names. Manuscripts not in compliance with the Journal's blinding policy will be returned to the corresponding author. Use rtf/doc files. Do not zip the files. Limit the file size to 1 MB. Do not incorporate images in the file. If file size is large, graphs can be submitted as images separately without incorporating them in the article file to reduce the size of the file. The pages should be numbered consecutively, beginning with the first page of the blinded article file.

[3] Images: Submit good quality color images. Each image should be less than 2 MB in size. Size of the image can be reduced by decreasing the actual height and width of the images (keep up to 1600 x 1200 pixels or 5-6 inches). Images can be submitted as jpeg files. Do not zip the files. Legends for the figures/images should be included at the end of the article file. 

Preparation of Manuscripts

Manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with "Uniform requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals" developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (December 2021). The uniform requirements and specific requirement of Education in the Health Professions are summarized below. Before submitting a manuscript, contributors are requested to check for the latest instructions available. Instructions are also available from the website of the journal (www.ehpjournal.com) and from the manuscript submission site http://www.journalonweb.com/ehp).

Education in the Health Professions accepts manuscripts written in American English.

Copies of any permission(s)

It is the responsibility of authors/contributors to obtain permissions for reproducing any copyrighted material. A copy of the permission obtained must accompany the manuscript. Copies of any and all published articles or other manuscripts in preparation or submitted elsewhere that are related to the manuscript must also accompany the manuscript.

Types of Manuscripts

Original Research – Empirical investigations in health professions education. Submissions must include a Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions sections. Submissions in this category generally are limited to 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). A structured abstract not to exceed 250 words is required. There is a limit of 8 authors.

Short Research Report – Studies with informative findings, but shorter in length than the Original Research section. Submissions in this category typically are limited to 1,500 words and 10 references.  An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 8 authors.

Special Report – Addresses miscellaneous topics of special interest to the health professions community. Submissions are limited to 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 8 authors.

Review – Articles in this section will be based either on extensive expertise in a given area, or a systematic review of the published literature on a topic relevant to health professions education. Systematic reviews should describe methods of the search strategy, inclusion criteria of articles, and how included articles were evaluated for quality. Authors are encouraged to consult resources on conducting and reporting systematic reviews to maximize chances of acceptance. Maximum length of a systematic review is 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 8 authors.

Methodology – Methodology submissions are intended to help researchers improve practice in educational research. Submissions may include new methodological techniques, significant improvements to existing methods, comparative works evaluating newer and conventional techniques, demonstrations, critiques, practical applications, etc. Unlike Faculty Development submissions that may focus on assessment-related techniques for educators, Methodology submissions primarily are intended for as potential tools for educational researchers. Submissions are limited to 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 8 authors.

Data Descriptor Articles - Article submissions in this section may focus on any aspect of health professions education while also pointing to a dataset that is publically available. Submissions might include, but are not limited to, the analysis of publically available data with a new methodological approach or method of inquiry to determine if findings remain consistent with previously published findings. Submissions are limited to 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 8 authors.

Faculty Development - Submissions in this section are intended to promote faculty development in health professions education. Submissions should focus on a specific description of a tested and evidence-based procedure, skill, strategy, concept, or technique related to teaching and/or assessment in health professions education. Works are limited to 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 5 authors.

Clinical Procedures - Articles in this section should include a description of a clinical procedure and discuss its impact on patient care and its implications for education (e.g., improving training; reducing potential for medical errors, etc). Submissions are limited to 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 6 authors. 

Clinical Case Reports - Submissions in the section should use case reports to convey important messages and best practices for patient care. Case reports should include substantial discussion about relevance to clinical practice and research and its linkage to health professions education. Submissions are limited to 3,000 words (excluding abstract, references and tables). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 6 authors.

Viewpoint – The Viewpoint section is devoted to well-formulated thought pieces (both evidence-based and opinion) on any topic of health professions education. Submissions are limited to 1,500 words (excluding references). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 5 authors.

Policy Pearls – Policy pearls are informative articles on education and health-related policies that present practical tips and lessons learned for other health professions educators. These papers are limited to 1,500 words (excluding references). An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 6 authors.

Innovative Ideas – Innovative ideas include novel ideas that have yet to be developed or implemented in medical and health professions education. Submissions are limited to 500 words and 5 references. No abstract is required. There is a limit of 4 authors.

Book Review – Book review submissions will focus on some aspect of education and its potential for application in health professions education. Book reviews are limited to 1,000 words (excluding references). No abstract is required. There is a limit of 2 authors.

Editorial – Editorials are commissioned papers from thought leaders on a specific topic. An abstract not to exceed 150 words is required. There is a limit of 2 authors.

Letter to the Editor – Letters to the Editor are short and decisive observations preferably relating to articles previously published in EHP. Letters are limited to 500 words and 5 references. No abstract is required. There is a limit of 2 authors.

Task Force Report - Submissions in this category include analyses of key issues, descriptions of policies, and recommendations from key organizations and societies in the health professions.

General Requirements of Manuscripts

Research Ethics: Submission of a manuscript to Education in the Health Professions implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content, and that approval of research has been obtained from an ethics committee (where appropriate), in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm for studies involving humans, and the Animal Welfare Act (http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federal-laws/animal-welfare-act) for studies involving animals. Information regarding research ethics must be stated at an appropriate point in the article. The journal will not consider any submission that is ethically unacceptable.

Reporting Guidelines: EHP recommends that relevant EQUATOR Network http://www.equator-network.org/ reporting guidelines be followed depending on the type of study. Other resources can be found at:https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/research_report_guide.html.

Reports of randomized clinical trials should present information on all major study elements, including the protocol, assignment of interventions (methods of randomization, concealment of allocation to treatment groups), and the method of masking (blinding), based on the CONSORT Statement (http://www.consort-statement.org).

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s published and unpublished ideas or words (intellectual property) without explicit attribution (referencing). This applies to all instances of another’s work, including abstracts, reports, grant applications and unpublished or published manuscripts in any form (from oral presentations to electronic and print publications). If intentional, such wrongful use of another’s intellectual property amounts to serious scientific misconduct. Intentional or unintentional plagiarism may represent a potentially costly copyright infringement. Education in the Health Professions' policy on plagiarism is based on a commitment to the highest standard of peer-reviewed publication. Plagiarism is always a serious issue, and authors are cautioned to take extreme care in manuscript preparation, being vigilant about what they present as their own work, and scrupulously referencing the words and ideas of others. Any detected instances of plagiarism in submitted, reviewed or published manuscripts will be dealt with rigorously, following the pathway suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (www.publicationethics.org.uk). For further information and guidance about citation of other’s work, authors are referred to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication, by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors at http://www.icmje.org.

Statistics: Please describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. For surveys and intervention studies/trials, ensure that the response/participation rate is described and any biases due to low participation, selection, non-response, voluntary response, social desirability, etc. are acknowledged. EHP places an ephasis on representative data. Thus, a low response rate does not disqualify a study from consideration provided there is evidence to indicate a sample is representative of the population of interest. Even in instances of high response rates authors should present evidence to indicate sample data are representative of the population of interest. For all statistical analyses make sure the assumptions associated with the technique(s) have not been violated. Authors should report the procedures used for handling any missing data. When making multiple comparisons, authors should use an appropriate correction procedure (e.g., Bonferroni correction, etc.) to adjust for family-wise error. When possible, please quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Use upper italics (P = 0.048) and include the exact P value (do not report "p < 0.05" or "p < 0.001"). Mean differences in continuous variables, proportions in categorical variables and relative risks including odds ratios and hazard ratios should be accompanied by their confidence intervals. Authors are expected to report effect size estimates when possible. Finally, authors should specify in the text the statistical (or other) software used with company details (name and address). 

Qualitative/Naturalistic Inquiry: Please provide sufficient detail regarding the setting, participants, researcher role, and data collection procedures including observation, interviews, and/or document analysis. Sufficient detail should be provided such that the study could be replicated. Data analysis should also be clearly explained including the development of codes, categories, and the recording of inferences as the conceptual scheme develops. Include information on member checking/validation, and triangulation as appropriate to enhance credibility of findings. Present results by showcasing exemplars that relate to the categories associated with the conceptual scheme and/or providing a cohesive narrative to demonstrate trustworthiness of the results. 

Results: Present your results in a logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations, giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat in the text all the data that appears in the tables or illustrations; emphasize or summarize only important observations. Extra or supplementary materials and technical details can be placed in an appendix where it will be accessible but will not interrupt the flow of the text. When data are summarized in the Results section, give numeric results not only as derivatives (for example, percentages) but also as the absolute numbers from which the derivatives were calculated, and 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. Where scientifically appropriate, analyses of the data by variables such as sex/gender, race/ethnicity, age, and other demographic factors should be included.

Discussion: The Discussion section should include a summary of key findings; Strengths and limitations of the study (e.g., study question, study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation); Interpretation and implications in the context of the totality of validity evidence (what this study adds to the available evidence, effects on patient care, health policy, student learning, etc.); Also, it is incumbent on authors to summarize validity evidence in light of modern validity theories (e.g., authors should speak to the accuracy of results, appropriateness of inferences, considerations regarding intended use, etc.). EHP does not endorse a particular validity framework, however, authors are encouraged to select one (e.g., Kane, Messick, etc.) and use the framework for summarizing validity evidence. Finally, the Discussion section should present any controversies raised by the study and present directions for future research.

Miscellaneous: Do not repeat in detail data or other material given in the Introduction or the Results section. In particular, contributors should avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless their manuscript includes economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority and alluding to work that has not been completed. New hypotheses may be stated if needed, however they should be clearly labeled as such. About 30 references can be included for an Original Research article. These articles generally should not have more than 6-8 authors.

References

References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text (not in alphabetic order). Authors should strive to provide modern referencees that reflect current research and perspectives so that the current manuscript builds upon the most recent literature. Thus, older references should be used sparingly. Identify references in text, tables, and legends by Arabic numerals in superscript with square bracket after the punctuation marks (e.g., ... professions.^[1-2]). References cited only in tables or figure legends should be numbered in accordance 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. Use complete name of the journal for non-indexed journals. Avoid using abstracts as references. 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. The commonly cited types of references are shown below; for other types of references such as newspaper items please refer to ICMJE Guidelines (http://www.icmje.org or http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html).

Journal article with less than six authors

Royal KD, Flammer K. Survey incentives in medical education: What do students say will entice them to participate in surveys? Med Sci Educ. 2017;27(2):339-344.

Journal article with more than six authors

Hecker K, Read EK, Vallevand A, Krebs G, Donszelmann D, Muelling CK, et al. Assessment of first-year veterinary students' clinical skills using objective structured clinical examinations. J Vet Med Educ. 2010;37(4):395-402.

Book

Doyle T, Zakrajsek T. The new science of learning: How to learn in harmony with your brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus; 2013.

Chapter within a book

McLaughlin GW, McLaughlin JE, McLaughlin JS. Diversity indices: research on metrics for measuring diversity in US higher education. In N Huber, P Pohlenz, R Krempkow (eds). Diversity in Science. Berlin, Germany: UVW-Verlag, 2013, pp. 185-204.

Online source

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Physical activity and health [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2015 [cited 2017 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/pa-health/index.htm.

Tables

• Tables should be self-explanatory and should not duplicate textual material.

• Tables with more than 10 columns and 25 rows are not acceptable.

• Number tables, in Arabic numerals, consecutively in the order of their first citation in the text and supply a brief title for each.

• Place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading.

• Explain in footnotes all non-standard abbreviations that are used in each table.

• Obtain permission for all fully borrowed, adapted, and modified tables and provide a credit line in the footnote.

• For footnotes use the following symbols, in this sequence: *, †, ‡, §, ||,¶ , **, ††, ‡‡

• Tables with their legends should be provided at the end of the text after the references. The tables along with their number should be cited at the relevant place in the text

Illustrations (Figures)

• Upload the images in JPEG format. The file size should be within 1024 kb in size while uploading.

• Figures should be numbered consecutively according to the order in which they have been first cited in the text.

• Labels, numbers, and symbols should be clear and of uniform size. The lettering for figures should be large enough to be legible after reduction to fit the width of a printed column.

• Symbols, arrows, or letters used in photomicrographs should contrast with the background and should be marked neatly with transfer type or by tissue overlay and not by pen.

• Titles and detailed explanations belong in the legends for illustrations not on the illustrations themselves.

• When graphs, scatter-grams or histograms are submitted the numerical data on which they are based should also be supplied.

• The photographs and figures should be trimmed to remove all the unwanted areas.

• If photographs of individuals are used, their pictures must be accompanied by written permission to use the photograph.

• If a figure has been published elsewhere, acknowledge the original source and submit written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce the material. A credit line should appear in the legend for such figures.

• Legends for illustrations: Type or print out legends (maximum 40 words, excluding the credit line) for illustrations using double spacing, with Arabic numerals corresponding to the illustrations. When symbols, arrows, numbers, or letters are used to identify parts of the illustrations, identify and explain each one in the legend. Explain the internal scale (magnification) and identify the method of staining in photomicrographs.

• Digital images must have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi or 1800 x 1600 pixels in TIFF format.

• The Journal reserves the right to crop, rotate, reduce, or enlarge the photographs to an acceptable size. 

Protection of Patients' Rights to Privacy

Identifying information should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, sonograms, CT scans, etc., and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian, wherever applicable) gives informed consent for publication. Authors should remove patients' names from figures unless they have obtained informed consent from the patients. The journal abides by ICMJE guidelines:

1. Authors, not the journals nor the publisher, need to obtain the patient consent form before the publication and have the form properly archived. The consent forms are not to be uploaded with the cover letter or sent through email to editorial or publisher offices.
2. If the manuscript contains patient images that preclude anonymity, or a description that has obvious indication to the identity of the patient, a statement about obtaining informed patient consent should be indicated in the manuscript.

Sending a revised manuscript

The revised version of the manuscript should be submitted online in a manner similar to that used for initial submission. However, there is no need to submit the “First Page” or “Cover Letter” file while submitting a revised version. When submitting a revised manuscript, contributors are requested to include, the referees’ remarks along with point to point clarification at the beginning in the revised file itself. In addition, they are expected to mark the changes as underlined or colored text in the article.

Publication Schedule

The journal publishes articles on its website with a tri-annual frequency.

The journal does not charge for submission and processing of the manuscripts.

Copyrights

The entire contents of the Education in the Health Professions are protected under Indian and international copyrights. The Journal, however, grants to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, perform and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works in any digital medium for any reasonable non-commercial purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship and ownership of the rights. The journal also grants the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal non-commercial use under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International Public License.

Checklist

Cover letter

• Signed by the corresponding author on behalf of all contributors
• Previous publication/presentation mentioned
• Source of funding mentioned
• Conflicts of interest disclosed
• Includes "elevator speech" explaining why the submission will be of interest to EHP readers

Authors

• Please provide First and Last names, including Middle name initials (where applicable)
• Author for correspondence, with e-mail and physical address provided
• Number of contributors restricted as per the instructions by article type
• Identity not revealed in paper except title page (e.g. name of the institution in Methods, citing previous study as 'our study', names on figure labels, name of institution in photographs, etc.)

Presentation and format

• Double spacing
• Margins 2.5 cm from all four sides
• Page numbers included at bottom
• Title page contains all the desired information
• Running title provided (not more than 50 characters)
• Abstract page contains the full title of the manuscript
• Abstract provided (structured abstract of 250 words for original articles, unstructured abstracts of about 150 words for all other manuscripts except Letters to the Editor, Innovative Ideas and Book Reviews)
• Key words provided (three or more)
• Introduction of 75-100 words, ideally
• Headings in title case (not ALL CAPITALS)
• The references cited in the text should be after punctuation marks, in superscript with square bracket
• References should be recent and according to the journal's instructions
• If revised submission, please send article file without ‘Track Changes’

Language and grammar

• Uniformly American English
• Write the full term for each abbreviation at its first use in the title, abstract, keywords and text separately unless it is a standard unit of measure. Numerals from 1 to 10 spelled out
• Numerals at the beginning of the sentence spelled out
• Check the manuscript for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors
• If a brand name is cited, supply the manufacturer's name and address (city and state/country).
• Species names should be in italics

Tables and figures

• No repetition of data in tables and graphs and in text
• Actual numbers from which graphs drawn, provided
• Figures necessary and of good quality (color)
• Table and figure numbers in Arabic letters (not Roman)
• Labels pasted on back of the photographs (no names written)
• Figure legends provided (not more than 40 words)
• Patients' privacy maintained (if not permission taken)
• Credit note for borrowed figures/tables provided
• Write the full term for each abbreviation used in the table as a footnote