Login or Register to make a submission.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
  • 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 file format.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Author Guidelines


PJNS is a quarterly, peer reviewed medical journal and follows the uniform requirements for Manuscripts (URM) submitted to Biomedical journals as approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as revised in 1997 (N Eng J Med 1997; 336:309-15). Detailed information about updated URM can be downloaded from ICMJE. PJNS follows the COPE guidelines regarding publication ethics and malpractices.

The submitted manuscripts must not be under consideration by any other publication at the time of submission. Only individuals making substantial contribution to the content of a paper according to ICMJE guidelines should be included as authors. Generic drug names and SI units (except for blood pressure in mmHg and hemoglobin in g/dL) should be used throughout. All submissions should be accompanied by a brief covering note explaining why the paper is suitable for PJNS. In addition, all submissions should begin with a title page including title of the paper, list of authors’ names, institutional or organizational affiliation, and contact information for the corresponding author.

The submissions need to be made through the online portal used in the journal. Submissions will not be accepted through email, post, or any other means. The authors must submit Covering Letter, Authors' Undertaking/Declaration  and proof of Ethical/Institutional approval with their submissions. 

A covering letter should be kept succinct and include the following information. (Maximum 250 words)

  • Title of the manuscript.
  • What is already known on the subject?
  • What will the results of your study add?
  • How will your results help in clinical practice and or further Research?

Authors undertaking/declaration should be downloaded and completely filled before submitting to PJNS.

Ethical approval of research in the form of letters from the ethical review committee (ERC), ethical review board (ERB), institutional review board (IRB), advanced studies and research board (ASRB) or any other relevant form of ethical approval is mandatory for all original articles manuscripts submitted to PJNS.



There are no submission, processing, or publication charges to publish in PJNS.



PJNS follows the ICMJE criteria for authorship. The author should:
1) Have made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2) Have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3) Have given final approval of the version to be published.
4) Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.


Contributions to PJNS are welcome in the following categories:

1. Original research articles

2. Review articles

3. Case reports

4. Editorials

5. Commentaries

6. Perspective

7. Special communication

8. Short communication

9. Book review

10. Letter to the editor

  • Manuscripts should be typed in 12-point font size, single space with clear margins on both sides.
  • Title and Headings in the manuscript should be in 14-point font size and left aligned.

Reviews – These are authoritative, evidence-based articles on topical subjects. Submission in this category is generally by invitation; however, unsolicited manuscripts are also welcome. Authors are encouraged to discuss an outline of their idea with the relevant editor in their specialty. No abstract needed. Word length 2,000-3,000; up to 20 references.

Original Research:

All manuscripts of original research should contain following sections:-

  1. a) Title Page

The title page should carry

1) The title of the article, which should be concise, specific and informative.
2) Full name of each author, with his or her highest academic degree(s) and institutional affiliation.
3) The name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be attributed.
4) Disclaimers, if any.
5) The name, email and postal address of the correspondence author. 

  1. b) Abstract and Key Words

The second page should carry structured abstract of not more than 250 words.

The abstract should state the:

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Background and purpose of the study or investigation;

METHODS: study design, place and duration of study, basic procedures as selection of study subjects or laboratory animals, observational and analytical methods;

RESULTS: main findings giving specific data and their statistical significance,  and

CONCLUSION: It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations.

KEY WORDS: Below the abstract authors should provide, and identify as such, 3 to 10 key words or short phrases that will assist indexers in cross-indexing the article and may be published with the abstract. Terms from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) list of Index Medicus should be used. If suitable MeSH-terms are not yet available for recently introduced terms, present terms may be used.


* The main manuscript of original article is divided into subsections according to “IMRaD” structure, with the headings Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion.

The total word count of the main manuscript must not exceed 4000 words.


Provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance).
State the rationale, specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation. Cite only directly pertinent references, and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.

  1. d) METHODS
  • Describe your selection of the observational or experimental subjects (patients or laboratory animals, including controls) clearly.
  • Identify the age, sex, and other important characteristics of the subjects. Because the relevance of such variables as age, sex, and ethnicity to the object of research is not always clear, authors should explicitly justify them when they are included in a study report.
  • Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer’s name and address in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow other workers to reproduce the results.
  • Give references to established methods, including statistical methods (see below); provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations.
  • Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s), and route(s) of administration.
  • Reports of randomized clinical trials should present information on all major study elements, including the protocol (study population, interventions or exposures, outcomes, and the rationale for statistical analysis), assignment of interventions (methods of randomization, concealment of allocation to treatment groups), and the method of masking (blinding).
  1. e) Ethics
    When reporting experiments on human subjects, indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1983. Do not use patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institutions or a national research council’s guide for, or any national law on, the care and use of laboratory animals was followed. Send the copy of approval certificate from Institutional review board for bioethics/ research ethical committee.


  1. f) Statistics

Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as the use of P values, which fails to convey important quantitative information. Discuss the eligibility of experimental subjects. Give details about randomization. Describe the methods for and success of any blinding of observations.  Give numbers of observations and report losses to observation (such as dropouts from a clinical trial). Specify any general-use computer programs used. Put a general description of methods in the Methods section. When data are summarized in the Results section, 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. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as “random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.” Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols.

  1. g) RESULTS
  • Present your results in past tense in a logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations in results section.
  • Do not repeat in the text all the data in the tables or illustrations.
  • State ALL the findings, whether significant or not, without bias or interpretation, do not include weaknesses, strengths of study, i.e. don’t discuss results.
  • Authors should present the results in short and to the point sentences with main or most important findings FIRST.
  • Authors should present only data directly relevant to the study.
  • Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and the interpretations that follow from them.
  • Do not repeat in detail data or other material given in the Introduction or the Results section.
  • Include in the Discussion section the implications of the findings and their limitations, including implications for future research. Relate the observations to other relevant studies.
  • Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not completely supported by the data.
  • Avoid claiming priority and alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypothesis when warranted, but clearly label them as such. Recommendations, when appropriate, may be included.

List all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. All persons must have given written permission to be acknowledged.

  • A maximum of 25 references may be included in an Original Research article.
  • References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text.
  • Identify references in text, tables, and legends by Arabic numerals, in superscript and without parentheses.
  • Use the Vancouver style of referencing.
  • The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus.
  • The references must be verified by the author(s) against the original documents.


  1. k) Illustrations and legends
  • Illustrations should be numbered in the order of their mention in the text.
  • f a figure has been taken from previously copyrighted material, the legend must give full credit to the original source and letters of permission must be submitted with the manuscript. Articles appear in both the print and online versions of the Journal, and wording of the letter should specify permission in all forms and media. Failure to get electronic permission rights may result in the images not appearing in the online version.
  1. l) Tables
  • Tables should be self-explanatory and numbered in Roman numerals in the order of their mention in the text.
  • Provide a brief title for each table in upper case.
  • Type each table on a separate page.
  • Abbreviations should be defined in a footnote at the end of the table.
  • If any material in a table or a table itself has been taken from previously copyrighted material, a footnote must give full credit to the original source and permission of the author and publisher must be obtained. Send letters of permission to the Editor with the manuscript.
  1. m) Conflict of Interest Notification Page

Authors should declare any potential conflict of interest and any financial support for the study may be disclosed as well.

  1. n) Randomized Controlled trials
  • PJNS requires a completed CONSORT 2010 checklist and flow diagram as a condition of submission when reporting the results a randomized trial.
  • Templates for these can be found here or on the CONSORT website which also describes several CONSORT checklist extensions for different designs and types of data beyond two group parallel trials.
  • Authors should ensure that their article, at minimum, reports content addressed by each item of the checklist. Meeting these basic reporting requirements will greatly improve the value of your trial report and may enhance its chances for eventual publication.As per recommendation of ICMJE, PJNS requires prospective registration of clinical trials in a public trials registry.

Systematic Review:

A systematic review paper should have a structured Abstract of no more than 250 words using headlines as Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis and Conclusions and with 3-10 key words for indexing.

Objective: Give precise statement of the primary objective for the review. Define if the review emphasizes cause and diagnosis, prognosis, therapy and intervention, or prevention. Define if the review would be highly selective as including only randomized controlled trials (RCT) or have wider inclusion criteria.

Data Sources: Present data sources used, including any time restriction.

Study Selection: Describe criteria to select studies for detailed review. Specify methods used, as blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers.

Data Extraction: Describe how extraction was made, including assessment of quality and validity.

Data Synthesis: Present the main results of the review and state major identified sources of variation between studies.

Conclusion: Give a clear statement of the conclusions made, its generalizability and limitations.


The Introduction of the paper could be similar to an original report, but without any longer literature survey, only reviewing shortly previous structural reviews and stating the reason and aim of the present review.

The Methods section may have subheadings corresponding to the Abstract (Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction) and should include clearly defined and reported inclusion and exclusion criteria, and specification of databases and other formal register, conference proceedings, reference lists and trial authors, which are used as sources. The full search strategy should be given so that it is easy to reproduce.  The stages of selection usually include several steps, each undertaken by at least two independent researchers (identified in the Methods). There will be an initial selection from titles/ abstracts to select the articles to be examined in full. The full articles should be re-screened against the selection criteria. The articles fulfilling the criteria should be subjected to quality assessment. Summarize in a flow chart with the number of articles selected and reasons for rejection at each stage. The quality of the methodology should be assessed having an appropriate tool and also for outcome measures and blinding of outcome assessors. The tool that is most appropriate will depend on the extent and nature of the anticipated research evidence.

The Result section corresponds to Data synthesis in the Abstract and may present tables with long lists of selected articles. Extracted data from trials should, when available, include report of randomization method, study population, intervention methods and delivery, reasons to losses at follow-up, information related to treatment monitoring, post-intervention assessments and follow-up. Report the major outcomes, which were pooled, and include odds ratios or effects sizes. Use when applicable meta-analysis. Numerical values should, when possible, be accompanied with confidence intervals. State the major identified sources of variation between reported studies, as differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. Tables and figures must be self-explanatory and have appropriate title or caption. The methods for synthesis of evidence should be pre-determined. Sometimes it may not be possible to pool the data, but a synthesis of best evidence ought to be given.

The Discussion section should be structured similar to an original report. The findings should be discussed with respect to the degree of consistency, variation, and generalizability. New contribution to the literature based on the review conducted and where information is insufficient must be stated. Providing the limitations of the review would be helpful. Suggest the need for new studies and future research agenda.

Length of paper: The total length of the text should usually not be more than 5000 words (corresponding to 8-9 printed pages) and in addition tables and the reference list. The reference list should be comprehensive and will therefore often be rather long. However, in the printed version of a review paper normally not more than 100 references will be accepted. If needed and without an upper limit, additional references may be published only electronically with a link to such an Appendix given in the original version of the paper.

Narrative review article:

A narrative review should have a structured Abstract which should not exceed 250 words, under the following headlines Background and Objectives, Methods, Review, Conclusion  summarizing the current status of the knowledge about the topic reviewed followed by 3-10 key words for indexing.

Introduction: This should provide a background to a review which focuses on relevant literature published over the last few years that has advanced our understanding of the issue under consideration. The headlines in the review have to be chosen according to the need of that particular review.

Methods: Proper Research strategy should be given. Give in detail the strategy for inclusion of article in the review. Details of the database searched and the time period for which it was searched should be stated.

The Review and Discussion section could be structured along the lines for an original report. At the end of discussion, limitations of the study and key message may be given.

Conclusions: Conclusions of the article also highlighting the problems, or areas for future research may be included.

Word count: Up to 4000 words.
References: up to 50.

 Case reports:

  • A Case Report should have a unstructured Abstract which should not exceed 250 words, providing some background and summariaing the case, followed by 3-10 key words for indexing.
  • Case Reports should be limited to 1500 words, including a short introduction, details of the case  followed by discussion and relevant documentary proof including pictures of the case (with the consent of the patient) or investigations like radiological or histopathological evidence.
  • Maximum 10 references may be provided.
  • Authors are advised to follow the CARE guidelines for case reports.

Letter to the Editor:

Letters to the Editor are considered for publication (subject to editing and abridgment) provided they do not contain material that has been submitted or published elsewhere. The letter must be typewritten and single-spaced. Its text, not including reference, must not exceed 250 words if it is in reference to a recent journal article, or 400 words in all other cases (please provide a word count). It must have no more than five references and one figure or table. Letters referring to a recent journal article must be received within four weeks of its publication. Please include your full address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address


These are short papers providing discussion and analysis on practical issues relevant to contemporary clinical practice or issues. Word length 1,000-1,500; up to 10 references.


 These are articles based on personal viewpoints articulated through opinion, debate or controversy. Topics should be of broad interest. Word length 1,000 words; up to 5 references.

Short Communications should be of about 1000 - 1200 words, having a non-structured abstract of about 150 words with two tables or illustrations and not more than 6 references.

Book Reviews – These are critical appraisals of books that would hold interest for professionals in any neuroscience field. Submission in this category is generally by invitation; however, unsolicited manuscripts are also welcome. Word length 500 words.

For enquires related to manuscripts under process, please send an email to arasheeddal@gmail.com , citing the manuscript number.


Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.