Author Instructions/Guidelines

Not more than 300 words. Should start on a new page after the title page and should be typed in single-space to distinguish it from the Introduction. Abstracts should briefly reflect all aspects of the study, as most databases list mainly abstracts.

Below to the abstract should not more than 6 keywords.

State the purpose and summarize the rationale for the study or observation.

Materials and/or subjects utilized in the study as well as the procedures undertaken to complete the work. The methods should be described in sufficient detail such that they could be repeated by a competent researcher. The sources of all major instruments and reagents used (kits, drugs, etc) must be given with parentheses. Illustrations and/or tables may be helpful in describing complex equipment or elaborate procedures. The statistical tool used to analyze the data should be mentioned. All procedures involving authentication of plant materials, experimental animals or human subjects must accompany a statement on ethical approval from appropriate authentic society and ethics committee must be produce when ask by Editorial board.

The data should be presented in a coherent sequence so that the report develops clearly and logically. The same data should not be presented in tabular and graphic forms. Please avoid unnecessary use of graphs and tables. Data should not be interpreted or discussed in results section. However, in some cases results and discussion could be combined as one section.

The principal conclusions drawn from the results and their important implications. Information presented under results and discussion should not be repeated. The conclusion should not be unnecessarily lengthy and verbose.

Conflicts of interest have to be declared.

The source of any financial support, gifts, technical assistance and advice received for the work being published must be indicated in the Acknowledgments section.

For references Harvard reference style should be used while preparing the manuscript.
CITING IN THE TEXT

1. Citing published work with one author
A recent study investigated the effectiveness of using Google Scholar to find medical research (Henderson, 2005).
or
Henderson (2005) has investigated the effectiveness of Google Scholar in finding medical research.

2. Citing published work with two authors
Recent research indicates that the number of duplicate papers being published is increasin (Arrami & Garner, 2008).

3. Citing published work with three or more authors
If the work has three or more authors/editors the abbreviation ‘et al’ should be used after the first author’s name (eg. Barros et al, 2008).

4. Citing publishedworks by the same author written in the same year
If you cite a new work which has the same author and was written in the same year as an earlier citation, you must use a lower case letter after the date to differentiate between the works.
Communication of science in the media has increasingly come under focus, particularly where reporting of facts and research is inaccurate (Goldacre, 2008a; Goldacre, 2008b).

5. Citing from chapters written by different authors
Some books may contain chapters written by different authors. When citing work from such a book, the author who wrote the chapter should be cited, not the editor of the book.

EXAMPLE OF A REFERENCE LIST
The list of references should be in alphabetical order by author/editor.

• Arrami, M. & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451 (7177), 397-399. Barros, B., Read, T. & Verdejo, M. F. (2008). Virtual collaborative experimentation: an approach combining remote and local labs. IEEE Transactions on Education, [Online] 51 (2), 242-250.
• Department of Health. (2008). More help for people with dementia. [Online] Available from: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/ detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=371217 [Accessed 20th June 2008].
• Goldacre, B. (2008a). Dore - the media’s miracle cure for dyslexia. Bad Science. Weblog. [Online] Available from: http://www.badscience.net/2008/05/dore-the-medias-miracle-cure- for-dyslexia/#more-705 [Accessed 19th June 2008].
• Goldacre, B. (2008b). Trivial Disputes. Bad Science. Weblog. [Online] Available from: http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/trivial-disputes-2/ [Accessed 19th June 2008].
• Henderson, J. (2005). Google Scholar: A source for clinicians? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 172 (12), 1549-1550.
• Holding, M. Y., Saulino, M. F., Overton, E. A., Kornbluth, I. D. & Freedman, M. K. (2008). Interventions in Chronic Pain Management. 1. Update on Important Definitions in Pain Management. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89 (3, Supplement 1), S38- S40.
• Pears, R. & Shields, G. (2008) Cite them right: the essential referencing guide. 3rd ed. Durham, Pear Tree Books.
• Ramalho, R., Helffrich, G., Schmidt, D.N. & Vance, D. (2010). Tracers of uplift and subsidence in the Cape Verde archipelago. Journal of the Geological Society. [Online] 167 (3), 519-538. Available from: doi:10.1144/0016-76492009-056 [Accessed: 14th June 2010].
• Simons, N. E., Menzies, B. & Matthews, M. (2001). A Short Course in Soil and Rock Slope Engineering. [Online] London, Thomas Telford Publishing. Available from: http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=93941 [Accessed 18th June 2008].
• Smith, A. (2004). Making mathematics count: the report of Professor Adrian Smith’s inquiry into post-14 mathematics education. London, The Stationery Office.
• Van Alphen, K., Voorst, Q. V. T., Kekkert, M. P. & Smits, R.E.H.M. (2007). Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energy Policy, 35 (8), 4368-4380.