General Criteria - Author's Guidelines


Checklist for Submission Preparation

As part of the submission process, authors are required to verify that their submission meets all the elements listed below. Submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines will be returned to the authors.

  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
  • The submission file is in Microsoft Word format.
  • URLs are provided for references within the manuscript.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the author guidelines.

Original articles must be prepared following the general format for presentation and must be submitted through the platform of the Salud Integral magazine of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of El Salvador, at the following address:

https://revistas.ues.edu.sv/index.php/si/about/submissions

Once the Editorial Board of the Salud Integral Magazine has received the manuscript, it will undergo an evaluation process based on the following considerations:

  • Style, content, and scientific novelty.
  • Presentation and technical language in the specific area.
  • The article must be unpublished.
  • Only one author should be the correspondent.
  • The Abstract of the manuscript and keywords in Spanish must be translated into English.
  • The following information must be included for each author (if any): full name, affiliation, email address, and ORCID code.
  • The manuscript must be submitted through the Open Journal System platform of the Journal; submissions by other means, whether printed or electronic, will not be accepted.

The Editorial Board of Salud Integral reserves the right to approve, reject, or suggest corrections for the acceptance of the manuscript, based on the outcome of the peer review evaluations.

Once the corrections suggested by the peer reviewers are submitted, the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor will send the observations to the author for rectification. After making the corrections, the author must upload the new document to the system within a maximum period of one month. There is a right to rebut observations, which must be submitted in writing and supported by scientific evidence.

Manuscripts submitted by authors not directly affiliated with the University of El Salvador must include publication permission from the institution that funded the research, if they received a grant for its execution.

Authors will assume responsibility for any conflicts arising from the authorship of the works or from third parties published in the Magazine.

General format for manuscript presentation

  • Must be presented in Microsoft Word following the Vancouver Style.
  • Letter-size paper, A4, with margins of 2.54 cm. Double spacing throughout the manuscript.
  • Times New Roman 12pt font, pages numbered in Arabic numerals consecutively, starting from the first page.
  • Include tables and figures. Tables and figures must have their corresponding consecutive number, title, and description.
  • Bibliographic references following the format of the Vancouver Style.

Rules for presenting images, tables, figures, units, symbols, and style

Figures

Figures are any graphic elements other than text, such as photographs, X-rays, maps, diagrams, graphs, microphotographs, or clinical images. All images must be submitted in high quality, with a minimum resolution of 300 dpi in TIFF, high-quality JPEG, PNG, or vector formats such as EPS and PDF for diagrams or schematics. Blurred, pixelated, or low-resolution images will not be accepted. Images should be numbered consecutively as Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and so on, in the order in which they are mentioned in the text. Each figure should have a brief and clear title, which should be placed below the image, followed by a caption that explains any symbols, abbreviations, or scales used. If several images are forming a figure, each image should be labeled with letters (A, B, C, etc.). The description of each image should be placed after the figure caption. For microphotographs, the magnification used should be specified. Images should be self-explanatory, but without unnecessarily repeating information already in the body of the text. When the image comes from a bibliographic source, it should be cited in full at the end of the caption and, if applicable, the corresponding authorization should be attached. If only part of the figure is used, it should be cited as follows: adapted from, followed by the bibliographic source. When recognizable people appear in them, written informed consent must be obtained, or their anonymity must be ensured.

Tables

Should be submitted in editable format, never as images. They should be numbered consecutively according to their order of appearance in the text as Table 1, Table 2, etc. The title of each table should be placed at the top, with brief and precise wording. The content of the tables should be presented in 10-point font, single-spaced and left-aligned, while the column headers should be centered and in bold. Explanatory notes may be included below the table to explain abbreviations, symbols, or highlighted values. A clean design is recommended, with horizontal borders separating headers from the body, without vertical borders or background colors that make reading difficult.

Numerical figures

When writing numerical figures, decimals should be separated by a comma rather than a period, while thousands should be separated by a thin space or regular space, for example: 12,2345; 12,500,000. When expressing millions, it can be written as “5 million.” Numerical values should be presented with the number of decimal places necessary to reflect accuracy, but avoiding overload: one or two decimal places is usual. In the case of p-values, a maximum of two decimal places is recommended, except in cases where it is necessary to show three to highlight the value close to the significance threshold, for example, p = 0.03 or p = 0.001. For very large or very small values, scientific notation should be used consistently throughout the manuscript, such 1,23 × 106 4,56 x 10-4.

Units of measurement

All units must be written in accordance with the International System of Units (SI). When units outside the SI are used due to custom or clinical practice, the SI equivalent must be indicated. Unit abbreviations do not take a period, except when they coincide with the end of a sentence, nor do they take a plural form, so 10 mg should be written rather than 10 mgs.

Symbols

The percentage symbol should be written with a space after the number (25%), as should the symbol for degrees Celsius (37°C). In the case of degrees of angle, the symbol ° should be placed next to the number and the unit, for example, 90°. The quotation marks used in the text should be Spanish (« ») and English quotation marks (“ ”) should only be used for quotations within quotations. Mathematical and statistical symbols and Greek letters should be in the correct format, with superscripts, subscripts, and special characters in the appropriate typeface.

Finally, numbers written at the beginning of a sentence should be expressed in words, for example: “Fifteen patients were included in the study.” The style of the manuscript should be consistent in Spanish, respecting the accentuation, accents, and punctuation marks specific to this language.

Citations
Citations are an important part of the manuscript submitted for publication in the Journal, not only to acknowledge the scientific credits of other authors but also because they provide evidence of the dialogue between knowledge. The Journal's citation guidelines are the Vancouver Style.

Magazine Sections

  • Original Article
  • Documentary Review Article
  • Systematic Review Article
  • Technical Note
  • Clinical Case
  • Scientific Essay

Manuscript structure according to Magazine sections

Elements Original Article Documentary Review Article Systematic Review Article Technical Note Clinical Case Scientific Essay
Title YES YES YES YES YES YES
Author(s) YES YES YES YES YES YES
Affiliation YES YES YES YES YES YES
Email YES YES YES YES YES YES
ORCID Code YES YES YES YES YES YES
Abstract / Abstract YES YES YES YES YES YES
Keywords / Keywords YES YES YES YES YES YES
Introduction YES YES YES YES YES YES
Objective YES NO NO YES NO NO
Case Presentation NO NO NO NO YES NO
Materials and Methods YES NO YES If Applicable NO NO
Results YES NO YES NO NO NO
Development/Content NO YES NO YES NO YES
Discussion YES NO YES NO NO NO
Case Discussion NO NO NO NO YES NO
Discussion and Analysis NO NO NO NO NO YES
Conclusions YES YES YES YES YES YES
Future Considerations YES YES YES NO NO YES
Ethical Considerations YES NO YES YES YES NO
Conflict of Interest YES YES YES YES YES NO
Acknowledgments Optional Optional Optional Optional YES Optional
Bibliographic References YES YES YES YES YES YES
Peer Review YES YES YES YES YES YES
Manuscript Word Count 5,000-7,000 6,000-8,000 6,000-8,000 3,000-4,500 3,000-4,500 3,000-4,000

General description of the magazine sections

Original Articles

This is a work published for the first time by its author, describing the results of an investigation using a methodology that allows for statistical evaluation, hypothesis testing, comparison of results, and contribution to scientific knowledge in various areas. The IMRyD method is used with additions: which are the acronyms for the four sections of the article: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion. The original article will have between 6,000 and 8,000 words. << See description of the structure and download the manuscript template >>

Review Article
A review article is a retrospective analysis of studies compiled in the literature on a topic considered interesting for a general or specialized audience. They offer a critical summary of existing literature to explain the current state of scientific evidence on a specific topic. A review article should summarize key research findings, cite must-read articles, describe current areas of consensus as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, raise unanswered questions, and suggest future lines of research. Different types of reviews are distinguished, including: narrative reviews and systematic reviews. Among the systematic ones, there are two subtypes: qualitative systematic reviews and quantitative systematic reviews or meta-analyses.

A. Documentary or Narrative

These are a selection of data collected from the literature, presented to readers as a synthesis to which the review authors add their own comments, conclusions, and recommendations. Their format is preferred when aiming to highlight novelties in the etiology, pathophysiology, or clinical characteristics of a disease. Authors of narrative reviews often omit mentioning the criteria they used to select the reviewed literature.

In a narrative review, the current state of a topic is presented without following an explicit systematic protocol in the selection of bibliographic sources. Authors identify and select studies from relevant publications of original articles and synthesize the information into a coherent narrative. Therefore, they should not be a simple monograph but coherently structured and written manuscripts.

<< See description of the structure and download the manuscript template >>

B. Systematic

The purpose of a systematic review article is to examine the published literature and put it into perspective to answer a well-defined and structured question; that is, it is a study of studies; as such, it compiles information generated by clinical research on a specific topic, which is sometimes mathematically assessed with a meta-analysis. Finally, these results are presented in conclusions summarizing the effect of one health intervention compared to another. In other words, its purpose is to conduct research on a topic where relevant and necessary information is analyzed and discussed; the publications reviewed must be very selective, always seeking the most important and recent. (Torres-Fonseca,2014)

A systematic review is not an original publication; it is a document resulting from secondary research that attempts to answer the research question through a systematic method to reach its answer by analyzing and integrating the results and conclusions of published research. The systematic review can be recognized as a study in itself, in which the author or authors have a well-defined and structured question; they detect, obtain, consult, and compile relevant information from previous articles necessary to answer the research question, perform an analysis, and generate a conclusion using an orderly and reproducible method.

The findings of a systematic literature review of previously published studies can support or refute findings or identify deficiencies in trial design. In 2009, the statement and guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were published for the conduct and reporting of studies, including a reporting checklist. These PRISMA guidelines establish eight main considerations for authors before undertaking a systematic review and meta-analysis, including: defining the review question; writing and publishing or registering the study protocol; conducting an objective and comprehensive systematic review of the literature; identifying included studies by selecting results against study selection criteria; performing a quality assessment of studies; synthesizing study evidence using a meta-analysis; preparing a manuscript for publication according to reporting guidelines; updating the systematic review and meta-analysis as new data are published. (Liberati; et al, 2009)

<< See description of the structure and download the manuscript template >>

Technical Note

It is a brief way to communicate preliminary results of an investigation, discoveries, observations, or experiments. It is useful for sharing new information or proposing hypotheses for future research. Unlike an original article, the scientific note focuses on presenting the key aspects of the research, such as the main results and their implications. << See description of the structure and download the manuscript template>>

Clinical Case

It consists of an orderly description of both the symptoms and events that occur to a patient during the course of a disease, as well as the complementary data provided by diagnostic procedures, the course of clinical reasoning, the diagnostic conclusion, the treatment used, and the evolution of the patient. It may contain a demographic profile of the patient and also describe their sociocultural situation. <<See description of the structure and download the manuscript template>>

Scientific Essay

It is a relatively brief writing dedicated to a specific topic that involves its deepening, discernment, and synthesis; where the author expresses their idea or point of view, personal interpretation on a particular topic based on objective information previously collected and presented. <<See description of the structure and download the manuscript template>>

Conflict of Interest
Possible conflicts of interest emanating from the manuscript submitted for publication must be stated.

Evaluation Process
Once submitted, the editorial team of the Salud Integral Journal reviews it within the next 15 days, and if they consider it of interest and it meets the criteria indicated in the author guidelines, it moves to the next phase of peer review. Thus, the works are reviewed according to the traditional double-blind peer review system, ensuring mutual anonymity between the reviewer and the author or authors of the work. The journal entrusts the review to experts on the subject, members of the Magazine's Advisory Board, and/or external to the editorial team. In view of the review reports, the magazine editor will make the final decision to publish or not publish the text.

Please note that even after being accepted in the peer review process, a submitted work can still be rejected if the Magazine's Editorial Board judges that the text is poorly written, with discontinuities in the discourse, repetitions, gaps, inaccurate or inappropriate statements, or failures in the bibliography.

The Editor will communicate to the authors the result of the evaluation and the editor's decision, whether to accept or reject the article.