The authors may please ensure that the length of their manuscript is between 5 and 15 pages. USEPG will accept any manuscript which is either shorter or longer than the prescribed limit, if the content is of extraordinarily high value.
| Article type | Word limit* | Figures and tables | References | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Original research |
NA |
8 |
NA |
Yes, 250 words |
Editorials |
1500 |
2-3 |
30 |
NA |
Review and series articles |
NA |
8 |
NA |
Yes, 250 words |
Research letters |
1200 |
1 |
15 |
No |
Correspondence |
800 |
1 |
10 |
No |
Short Communication |
1500 |
4 |
30 |
Yes, 200 words |
Case Report |
2500 |
8 |
30 |
Yes, 200 words |
REQUIREMENTS :
Cover Letter :
A cover letter is essential and must be submitted with the manuscript (approximately one-page cover). Include following in the cover letter
All submissions should be accompanied by a 500 words or less cover letter briefly stating the significance of the research, agreement of authors for publication, number of figures and tables, supporting manuscripts, It should include the information of the authorship, along with the declaration that author has followed the USEPG author guidelines. Author may also include the type of article, word count, number of tables and figures. Authors may also mention suggested reviewers list or any competing Reviewers list.
Title: Manuscript file should contain the full article title and a short running title. The full title (maximum of 25 words) should be specific, concise and be a statement of the main finding or conclusion presented in the manuscript that can help the reader to decide whether they should read the text or not. Abbreviations should be avoided within the title. The running title should be a maximum of 6 words in length and should state the theme of the paper. Authors who hold patents related to the research presented in manuscript should include a statement in a foot note.
Abstract: The abstract should be informative and completely self-explanatory, briefly present the topic, state the scope of the experiments, indicate significant data, and point out major findings and conclusions. The abstract should summarize the manuscript content in 300 words or less. Standard nomenclature should be used and abbreviations should be avoided. The preferable format should accommodate a description of the study background, methods, results and conclusion. Following the abstract, a list of keywords (3-10) and abbreviations should be included.
Author Details:
Author Name 1 “ for corresponding author” |
Author Name 2 |
Author Name 3 |
Faculty/Department/Division |
Faculty/Department/Division |
Faculty/Department/Division |
* If the article has been submitted on behalf of a consortium, all author names and affiliations should be listed.
Keywords
Five to ten keywords (includes terms for indexing) representing the main content of the article.
Materials and Methods: This section should provide a complete overview of the design of the study. Detailed descriptions of materials or participants, comparisons, interventions and types of analysis should be mentioned. The main methods used shall be briefly described, citing references. New methods or substantially modified methods may be described in sufficient detail. The statistical method and the level of significance chosen shall be clearly stated.
- While presenting data, authors should anticipate the limitations set by the size and layout of the journal. Large and complex tables, figures and maps should be avoided in the main paper, but can be included in a data appendix for use by the reviewers.
- Figures should be saved in a neutral data format such as JPEG, TIFF or EPS. PowerPoint and Word graphics are unsuitable for reproduction. Please do not use any pixel-oriented programs. Scanned figures (in JPEG and TIFF formats) should have a resolution of 300 dpi (halftone) or 600 to 1200 dpi (line drawings) in relation to the reproduction size.
- Each table and figure should be presented on a separate page of the manuscript, with a brief and self-explanatory title. All text should be clearly legible, and all graphics and legends should be easily distinguished when printed in black and white. Tables should use horizontal lines only, with only blank space to separate columns.
Results
The results section should provide complete details of the experiment that are required to support the conclusion of the study. The results should be written in the past tense when describing findings in the authors' experiments. Previously published findings should be written in the present tense. Results and discussion may be combined or in a separate section. Speculation and detailed interpretation of data should not be included in the results but should be put into the discussion section.
Discussion
The discussion should spell out the major conclusions of the work along with some explanation or speculation on the significance of these conclusions. How do the conclusions affect the existing assumptions and models in the field? How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? The discussion should be concise and tightly argued. Conclusions firmly established by the presented data, hypotheses supported by the presented data, and speculations suggested by the presented data should be clearly identified as such. The results and discussion may be combined into one section, if desired.
Conclusions: This should be clearly explaining the author thoughts, highlights and limitations of the study.
Acknowledgements: Author could provide the grant details if any or express his gratitude towards his interest.
Figure legends: Type or print out legends for illustrations using double spacing, starting on a separate page, 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 clearly in the legend. Explain the internal scale and identify the method of staining in photomicrographs.
Citation:
Cite references in the text by name and year in parentheses. For e.g.,
Subject area covers many disciplines (Victor, 1981).
This assumption of theory was approved by John and Daniel (1996).
This technique was effectively proved and has been widely reported (Peter, 1991; Goodmann et al., 1995; Black and Smith, 2008; Mandal et al., 2012).
References
References are to be listed and numbered consecutively in the order of appearance in the text, tables, or legends, using Arabic numerals. In the text, citations should be indicated by the reference number in parentheses.
Only published or accepted manuscripts should be included in the reference list. In-press articles cited within the references should be made available if requested by the editorial office. Limited citation of unpublished work should be included in the body of the text only as "unpublished data" with the written approval to be provided to the editor upon request. Here are some examples:
All authors should be included when there are six or fewer (first six authors followed by "et al" when seven or more), followed by the title of article, name of journal , year, volume, and first and last pages.
Kato T, Miyaki S, Bryan, Kennedy Y, Nakasa T, Lotz MK, et al. Exosomes from IL-1β stimulated synovial fibroblasts induce osteoarthritic changes in articular chondrocytes. Arthritis Res Ther.
Article Processing Charges.
If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors have to pay the Article Processing Charges of the manuscript.As all Journals are open access but costs are involved in several phases of the publication process, like manuscript handling form submission to publication, peer-review, editing & typesetting, indexing of articles, electronic archiving, server and website update and maintenance etc. Therefore, we meet the costs by collecting Manuscript Processing Charges from author, author's institutes or research funding bodies.
Copyright Policy
Open Access authors retain the copyrights of their papers, and all open access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. Submit Manuscript Online
Editorial boards are an essential and valuable resource for USEPG journals. Our editors are experts in their respective fields and are responsible for the peer review process and the content of the journal. Their role is to handle the peer review of manuscripts, make recommendation on the acceptance or rejection of a paper and attract high-quality submissions.
Responsibilities of an Editor:
- Editors should give fair and unbiased decisions.
- Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and honest reporting.
- Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed.
- Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
- Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.
- Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them.
- Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.
- Ensure the quality of the published material, through peer-review, personal comments, and editing.
USEPG aims to provide authors with professional, fair, timely and confidential peer reviews by experts in the field. The review consists of the following steps:
1. After receipt of a manuscript, it is checked by our internal staff to ensure adherence to our policies, including statement of competing interests; ethical requirements for studies involving human participants or animals; and unacceptably low standard language. Manuscripts may be declined without a full review, or asked for revision, if they are inconsistent with Editorial Guidelines.
2. Manuscripts are assigned to an Academic Editor and two or three reviewers. External referees are consulted when additional expertise is required. All reviewers are working scientists and therefore are in the best position to judge the quality and importance of the work. All board members and referees who review a manuscript remain unknown to the authors. Every manuscript is treated by the editors and reviewers as privileged information, and they are instructed to exclude themselves from review of any manuscript that might involve a conflict of interest.
3. The reviewers make a recommendation to accept, revise, or decline a paper based upon the scientific merit and technical quality of the studies reported. The primary criteria for judging the acceptability of a manuscript are its novelty and scientific importance, i.e., novel and important contributions to understanding the molecular, cellular and clinical basis of cancer etiology, development, and treatment.
4.Editors have the option of accepting, recommending modification, recommending additional external review, or rejecting.
5. If the decision is Minor Revision or Major Revision, authors have 30 days to resubmit a revised manuscript. Upon resubmission, the academic editor may choose to return the manuscript to the reviewers, or may render a decision based on his/her personal expertise.
6. United Scientific e publishers aims to provide authors with an initial decision within Three weeks. After acceptance, manuscripts are published online within two days.
7. Proof reading:
You can annotate and add comments in a Word document. If, for any reason, this is not possible, mark the corrections and any other comments on a printout of your proof and return by scan the pages and email to contact@usepg.org
Please use this proof only for checking the typesetting, editing, completeness and correctness of the text, tables and figures. Significant changes to the article as accepted for publication will be considered at this stage only with permission from the editor. We will do everything possible to get your article published quickly and accurately; please reply with your corrections within 48 hours. Proofreading is solely your responsibility. Note that USEPG may proceed with publication of your article, with no further editing, if no response is received.
Reviewers should agree to review a manuscript only if they have expertise in the subject area adequate for accurate assessing and giving a constructive report. Reviews should be based on relevancy, integrity, scientific strength, potential interest, completeness, clarity, and ethics in the work reported in manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication and help the authors improve the manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether additional experiments or data are required to support the conclusions. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.
- To maintain confidentiality with respect to the manuscripts, once the review process commence.
- To evaluate the manuscript in a constructive way, providing a legible insight to author without any controversy.
- To maintain impartiality, in other words, reviewer decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather on financial, racial, ethnic origin etc... of the authors.
- To maintain confidentiality with respect to the manuscripts, once the review process commence.
- Reviewer should be responsible to complete the review within the relevant time and should take all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the journal.
- Complete the review questions or report form to indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the paper.
- A referee may disagree with the author's opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
Answer key questions
The main factors you provide advice as a reviewer are: the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript's subject matter to the readership of the journal.
Try to have the following questions in mind while you are reading the manuscript:
- Is the submission original?
- Is the research cutting edge or topical?
- Does it help to expand or further research in this subject area?
- Does it significantly build on (the author's) previous work?
- Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
- Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
- Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
- Is there an abstract or brief summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section? Is the paper complete?
- Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
- Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
- Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
Make a recommendation
Once you've read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication.
The specific decision types used by a journal may vary but the key decisions are:
- Accept - if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Minor revision - if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
- Major revision - if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
- Reject - if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
Provide detailed comments
- These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
- If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
- Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.