Submission Guide for Authors
Technical Note Submission Guide
Review guide for ad hoc reviewers
Technical Notes Review Guide

Submission Guide for Authors

Instructions to authors for preparing and submitting articles

Download the template for submission
PDF Template	WORD Template

Before starting the submission process, authors must check the compliance of all items in this Submission Guide for Authors. Submissions that do not comply with the standards will be returned to the authors for adjustments.

For submission of the article, the corresponding author must send the Cover Letter (Cover Letter) to the Editorial Committee containing the justification for the originality, importance of the work and other observations that you judge pertinent (e.g. it is part of a dissertation or thesis, it originates from a course conclusion work or monograph, etc.) and the documents of the article on the BJHP submission platform. The documents sent must follow the definitions and guidelines in this Submission Guide for Authors.

Table 1

Instructions for each item of the scientific article, according to the standards of the magazine Brazilian Journal of Health and Pharmacy.

ITEM	INSTRUCTION
Conditions	Works written in English or Portuguese will be accepted. Works submitted in English will be given preference and must also have a title and summary in Portuguese. Manuscript must be original and unpublished and not be subject to review or submitted for publication in another journal. Figures, images and copies of documents, such as proof of approval by CEUA, CEP or registration with the SisGen, when applicable, must be attached individually, in separate files. The figures and images must be in high resolution, be suitable for all audiences and observe current legislation about copyright. When not authored own, must have the source duly cited and be accompanied by authorization of use or license compatible, where applicable. For tables, they must be inserted into the table itself. text (see the Results item in this Table 1). For opinion articles, the items Method and Results are no longer mandatory. Review articles must include the Method item, except for guest authors with expertise in a topic of interest to the journal. First page: titles, authors, affiliation and author corresponding. Page 2 onwards: other topics in continuous text.
General Formatting of the Manuscript	Single column writing. Source: Times New Roman Regular, except when indicated for bold or italics Size 12 Justified Double space A4 paper, right, left, top and bottom margins 2.5 cm and numbered pages. Citations of articles in the text: surname with initials capital letters followed by a comma and year. For two authors put a comma between them. For three or more authors, put the first author's surname followed by "et al.“ followed by a comma and year.
Title	In the official language of the article: Portuguese or English Bold, Times New Roman 14 Initial of the first word only in capital letters, except for proper and scientific names Title in second language: English or Portuguese
Authors	Full name (without abbreviation) of the Authors separated by semicolon and Arabic numeral superscript after each Author. If all authors belong to the same institution, the number should not be used. Corresponding author indicated by asterisk.
Membership	Numbered in accordance with Arabic numerals envelopes for each author, containing the name of the linked institution (including department or sector, if any), city, confederation unit, country. Do not include the role or position of the authors, only the linking institution. If it is independent professional, without specific employment relationship, include profession, city and state of accomplishment of work.
Corresponding Author	Indicated by an asterisk containing full name, number ORCID and email.
Summary/Abstract/ Keywords/keywords	In Portuguese and English. Maximum 260 words, containing a brief introduction that justifies the work hypothesis, objective(s), main methods with minimal detail when understanding of the work carried out, better results relevant and conclusion. Keywords: at the end of the summary, include three to six keywords, separated by semicolon (only the first capital letter), using the terms presented in the vocabulary structured (DeCS), available at: https://decs.bvsalud.org/ Terms already present in the title are dispensable as keywords.
Graphic summary	The graphical summary consists of a visual representation summary of the main content or conclusions of the manuscript. Its objective is to highlight the main study findings, facilitating quick understanding of the results and increasing the visibility of the article, especially for advertising purposes on the BJHP website and on the journal's social networks. The graphical summary must contain at least one visual element (e.g. flowchart, diagram or illustration) that represents clearly and objectively the main findings of the work. It is recommended to use none or a few short words or phrases, strictly necessary to establish the connection between the findings of the manuscript and the visual representation. The graphical summary must be submitted as a separate file on the platform submission, in image format (PNG, JPEG or TIFF), in high resolution, with at least 300 dpi and titled “Graphic summary”.
Introduction	Brief review of the literature justifying the hypothesis, relevance and innovation of the work. Inform the objectives from work to end. A maximum of two is recommended pages.
Method	Description of the methods and protocols used, in order to allow its reproduction. Must contain approval number in Research Ethics Committee involving human beings or animals, when applicable, and authorization from a competent (SISGEN in Brazil) for biological materials and of natural origin. The materials must be informed as they appear in the methods. Generic name or IUPHAR for pharmaceuticals and IUPAC for chemical reagents.
Results	Presented in the order whenever possible presented in the Method. Logical sequence that allows the understanding the construction of results. The text does not must repeat or duplicate the results of figures, graphs, images, tables and charts. Figures, images, graphs, flowcharts, algorithms and illustrations must be sent in separate files, numbered in Arabic numerals according to the order of citation in the text, preferably in JPEG formats, TIFF or PNG, in high resolution and with adequate quality for electronic publication. Authors must indicate, in the body of the manuscript, the suggested place for insertion of each visual element, including the respective title and, when necessary, the caption explanatory. All visual elements must have a title and/or captions are clear, objective and self-explanatory. When they are not their own authorship, they must have the source duly indicated and accompanied by authorization of use, compatible license or proof of domain public, when applicable. Simply indicating the source does not replace the need for authorization or license to use, when required by current legislation.    Images previously published or obtained from databases images, internet pages, books, articles, technical documents, social networks or other means may only be used when they respect the current copyright legislation. Images that allow the identification of people, patients, professionals, institutions, services, documents, records, system screens or any data sensitive information may only be submitted when there is formal authorization for use and disclosure, subject to the ethical, legal and personal data protection standards applicable. Images must be suitable for all audiences and compatible with the ethical and editorial principles of BJHP. Digital changes will only be accepted when do not compromise the interpretation of the content presented. Images generated or modified with generative artificial intelligence tools must be declared by the authors, according to the Policy for the use of generative artificial intelligence BJHP. Tables and tables must be sent in the body of the article. Title above the table or chart and below the last line (foot of the table or table), include abbreviation and statistical test information used, when applicable.
Discussion	Together or separately from the Results item. Present the relevance and innovation of the data obtained in light of literature. A maximum of three pages is recommended.
Conclusions	Written highlighting compliance with the initial hypothesis, its importance and perspectives.
Acknowledgments and institutional funding	Indicate names of people who contributed to any aspect of the work, but who did not participate as authors. Inform financing institutions containing project or grant number, when applicable. It's not necessary thanks to the institution(s) linked to the authors, nor to the subjects in case of clinical studies: for these we consider that the thanks are implied.
Declaration of conflict of interest	Indicate when there is a conflict of interest, including minimum information necessary for understanding. Write “The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest”, when this is not the case.
Declaration of use of artificial intelligence	When generative artificial intelligence is used, authors must include an objective statement, as per the example: The authors declare that they used the tool [tool name, version when applicable] for [purpose of use], at the [stage of work]. After using the tool, all content was reviewed, checked and validated by the authors, who assume full responsibility for the final version submitted to BJHP. When there is no use of generative artificial intelligence, can be used the following statement: The authors declare that they do not used artificial intelligence tools generative approach in the preparation of this work.
Bibliographic References	A maximum of 50 citations are recommended throughout the work. [Times New Roman 12]. At least 50% of Cited references must have the DOI number linked. Include the DOI at the end of the respective reference, after the year. THE DOI must be inserted with the complete link (Ex: “DOI: https://doi.org/....”). The style and format of references must follow the Association rules Brazilian Technical Standards (ABNT), with small adaptations that will be presented and exemplified below, in “Modelo de references”. Furthermore, it is highlighted that: the list of references must include all works cited in the preparation of the work; the works included in the list of references must be ordered alphabetically; the list of references must be aligned to the margin left of the page (not justified); the list of references must be typed in spaces simple between the lines and separated from each other by a Single space blank line. REFERENCE MODELS: Magazine article Cite the names of the authors of the article: surname in capital letter followed by a comma and name initials separated by periods (no spaces). Separate authors by semicolon. If the article has up to three authors, They are all indicated in the order in which they appear in the publication, separated by semicolons. If the article has four or more authors, only the first one is indicated followed by the expression et al. (without italics). Only the initial of the first word of the article title must be written with a capital letter (except for proper nouns and scientific). Name of the periodical in full and in bold, followed by comma, volume, number, page beginning and end, year. Example: OLIVEIRA, L.G.T. et al. Disposal of inputs pharmacists in healthcare establishments. Brazilian Journal of Health and Pharmacy, v. 2, no. 1, p. 5-12, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29327/226760.2.1-1. Example: OLIVEIRA, L.G.T. et al. The disposal of pharmaceutical supplies in healthcare establishments. Brazilian Journal of Health and Pharmacy, v. 2, n. 1, p. 5-12, 2020. DOI: 10.29327/226760.2.1-1.    Corporate authors To reference corporate authors (agencies governments, entities, associations, among others), There are the following examples: BRAZIL. Ministry of Health, Secretariat for Health Care Health, Department of Specialized Care. manual support for SUS managers: organization of the network of clinical laboratories. Brasília, 2003. ANVISA. NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AGENCY. Resolution of the collegiate board - RDC nº 17, of 16 April 2010. Provides for Good Practices in Manufacturing of Medicines. Available at: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/.../res0017_16_04_2010.html Accessed on: 25 Aug. 2020. ANS. NATIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH AGENCY. Guidelines Mental Health Assistance in Supplementary Health. river de Janeiro: ANS, 2008. Available at: http://www.ans.gov.br/.../diretrizes_assistencial.pdf . Accessed on: 26 Aug. 2020.    Books: only when there is no corresponding published article. How to reference a monograph considered as a whole with a author: SURNAME, given name(s) (initials). Title in bold. Edition. Place of publication (City): Publisher, year of publication. With two authors, example: AZEVEDO, F.A.; CHASIN, A.A.M. The toxicological basis of Ecotoxicology. 1st ed., São Paulo: Rima, 2004. When there are three or more authors, reference is made to only the first followed by the Latin expression “et al.” (without comma and without italics), example: BRUNTON, L.L. et al. (ed). Goodman & Gilman’s: As Pharmacological Bases of Therapy. 11th ed., Rio de January: Guanabara Koogan, 2006. CURI, R. et al. Basic physiology. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 2009. Academic works Documents from master's dissertations and theses doctorates can be cited as long as they are in public repository. To reference them: SURNAME. First name (initials). Thesis title: subtitle (if any) in bold. Year of defense. Type (Degree) – Institution where it was defended, location (City). Example: CHEQUER, F.M.D. Assessment of material damage capacity genetic by the azo dyes Disperse Red 1, Disperse Red 13 and Disperse Orange 1: identification and analysis of the mutagenic potential of its products biotransformation. 2011. Thesis (Doctorate in Science: toxicology). Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Ribeirão Preto/USP. Ribeirão Preto. Works without indexing or without access availability public should not be used. References must be listed at the end of the work, in alphabetical order, adopting the letter-by-letter system. letter. Entry is done systematically by surname of the author. However, if the author (person or entity), it will be done by title.

The BJHP recommends steps to take before submission:

1. ORCID number of authors: Information and free registration at https://orcid.org
2. Full name and institution of affiliation of all authors.
3. Regularity of registration in the National Heritage Management System Genetics and Associated Traditional Knowledge – SisGen when relevant. Check https://www.mma.gov.br/patrimonio-genetico.html and guidance on https://sisgen.gov.br/download/Manual_SisGen.pdf
4. Approval number in the Research Ethics Committee involving human beings humans or animals, when applicable.
5. Bibliographic references must follow the rules of the Standards of Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT),
   1. as per Table 1 (above). Check that at least 50% of references cited from scientific literature has a linked DOI number.

BJHP strongly recommends the use of checklists available on the platform Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) in preparing the article for publication. The EQUATOR platform is available at https://www.equator-network.org/.

There are specific checklists for the different study models, such as exemplified below:

• Systematic Reviews with or without meta-analysis must follow the methodological recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISM);
• Preclinical animal studies should follow the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE);
• Observational studies must follow the recommendations of the Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE). See the website below for variations in the checklist, depending on the type of observational study (case-control, cross-sectional and cohort);
• Clinical trials must follow the recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)Statement ;
• Economic evaluation studies must follow the recommendations of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS);
• Studies on protocols must follow the recommendations of the Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials (SPIRIT);
• Studies on prognosis and diagnosis must follow STARD (An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostics Accuracy Studies);
• Reports and case must follow the Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development (CARE);
• Studies on protocols in clinical practice must follow a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines (AGREE);
• Qualitative studies should follow the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: a synthesis of recommendations (SRQR).

Before submitting your article, make sure that:
- Submission is unpublished (has not been previously published, nor is it being considered by another periodical).

- The submission file is in OpenOffice document format, Microsoft Word or RTF.
- When available, the URLs and DOIs of references were included.
- The text complies with the standards and all illustrations, figures and tables are inserted in the places appropriate.
- The text follows the stylistic requirements and bibliographical information described in the Submission Guide for Authors.

  

It is the authors' obligation to verify the conformity of the submission in relation to to all items listed in the Submission Guide for Authors. The Submissions that do not comply with the standards will be returned to the authors.

---

Back to top

Review, Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

The review

• Contributes to the quality, clarity and technical rigor of the article published;
• Confirms the importance of data and information;
• Acts as a security barrier to detect plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data manipulation or other scientific fraud;
• Contributes to academic, scientific and/or professional;
• Ensures the dissemination and dissemination of data and information in a suitable and ethical;

As?

• Produce a clear and objective document for authors and editors review demands;
• Send the review request document or response to BJHP magazine regarding acceptance or not, in a timely manner and required for its publication;
• Include suggestions and comments based on literature scientific for the author;
• Give constructive criticism, keeping the tone cordial, respectful and strictly professional, refraining from assessments of a personnel;
• Guarantee absolute secrecy regarding the manuscript received, with no retaining, copying, sharing or using work data before of its publication.

Comments to the Author and Editor or only to the Editor

• About innovation and scientific, professional or social relevance knowledge in the journal's areas of knowledge.
• Whether the article is suitable for publication and, if not, the reason(s).
• Comments exclusive to the editor will not be communicated to the author.

Use of generative artificial intelligence

Before starting the evaluation, the reviewer must read and observe the Policy BJHP's use of generative artificial intelligence [insert hyperlink to policy on BJHP website]. O content of manuscripts, supplementary documents and other materials received in the editorial process is confidential and should not be entered on external generative artificial intelligence tools. The review must remain under human responsibility, with the reviewer being responsible for confidentiality, impartiality, integrity and quality technical-scientific aspect of the opinion issued.

Before you start

• Before accepting or declining an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

1. The subject of the article is in line with your area of expertise and knowledge?
2. Is there a conflict of interest? Inform BJHP when applicable.

• Carefully read and familiarize yourself with the Submission Guide for Authors.
• Check the format of the manuscript and compliance with standards expressed in the Submission Guide for Authors, in order to guarantee the homogeneity of the standard in the final publication. If it contains any Nonconformity must include a request to the author in the document request for review.
• The reviewer's identity is confidential information, maintained by the BJHP Administrative Secretariat and Editorial Board.

Reviewing the document (and attachments when applicable)

• Accepting the invitation, filling out the evaluation form and sending of the final opinion will be carried out exclusively on the platform BJHP electronics.
• The manuscript and its annexes are strictly confidential materials. It is expressly prohibited to retain, copy, share, plagiarize or use any data, hypothesis or information from the work before its eventual publication.
• When writing suggestions to remedy deficiencies in the text, the reviewer must prepare a report to justify and substantiate its reviews so that the editor and authors can distinguish clearly what constitutes a data-based recommendation and scientific evidence of personal preference considerations of the evaluator. Do not make or send considerations using the file in where the manuscript is.

Road map

1. Identification: Start the document by stating the number and title of the manuscript.
2. General appreciation: write a brief comment contextualizing the relevance, originality, general quality and the scientific, professional or social importance of the data and information presented.
3. Scope analysis and editorial adequacy: let us know if the manuscript is suitable for the scope of BJHP, the type of article submitted and the general rules of the magazine.
4. Topic-specific analysis: present comments and suggestions for each section of the manuscript, considering, when applicable: title, summary/abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusion and bibliographic references. For review articles, opinion articles, case studies or other modalities, the analysis must follow the topics presented by the authors. For sections without observations, you can record “without suggestions or observations.”
5. Classification of demands: clearly indicate and preferably in numbered topics, which adjustments are essential for eventual publication and what are suggestions for improvement.
6. Final recommendation: Finally, present your editorial recommendation in the specific field: accepted, minor revision, major review or rejection, justifying your choice.
7.   

Checklist and tips for revision

• Title: must objectively inform the principal finding the work or its main information generated, avoiding little-known acronyms or ambiguous terms.
• Summary and abstract: must inform the objectives, methodology used, main results (including numbers when applicable) and conclusion.
• Graphic summary: must contain at least one element visual (e.g. flowchart, diagram or illustration) that clearly and objectively represent the main findings of the work. It is recommended to use no or few words or short sentences, strictly necessary to establish the connection between the manuscript findings and the visual representation. The summary graphic must be submitted as a separate file on the platform submission, in image format (PNG, JPEG or TIFF), in high demand resolution, with at least 300 dpi and titled “Graphic summary”. O reviewer must evaluate whether the image has technical quality, high resolution (minimum 300 dpi) and whether it is self-explanatory.
• Introduction: check if the information is placed in an organized and coherent way to understand the justification and theoretical basis; if the references The bibliographical references cited are really the primary source of information. Quotes from reviews may be used as long as it is clear that this is a review and as long as they are not the only sources. O The objective of the work must be clear, as well as the justification for its relevance. Feel free to suggest a new way of organization and use of other references.
• Method: in the case of articles with experimental data, whether in animals or humans, analyze: whether it would be possible to reproduction based on description of methods; whether the method is suitable the objectives of the work; whether the protocols were approved by CEUA or zip code; whether the protocols are clear and correspond to the groups presented in the results; if the order of the methods corresponds to the order of results presented (or similar) and whether the analysis statistics are adequate. If it is a method already validated and published in indexed periodical, can be summarized and the reference included. For qualitative works, check whether the systematic analysis was carried out and whether the description is sufficient.
• Results: check that the presentation, order and clarity of the text, figures, graphs, tables are coherent and satisfactory to meet the objectives. If necessary: suggest improvements, preferably in numbered topics to facilitate service by the author; suggest new experiments or new analyses; comment on the quality and format of the figures and tables. Leave it well clear the need for changes.
• Conclusion: comment on the importance, validity and coherence with the results presented. Request deletion of redundancies and summary of results
• Bibliographic References: check that all references cited in the text are in the list and vice versa. Check whether they are all in the required format and whether they are standardized in accordance with the standards of the BJHP magazine, paying attention to the current of sources and the maximum limit required by the journal.

Comments to the Editor (this item will not be sent to the author).

• The reviewer must complete the items mentioned below:

Final aspects (this item will not be sent to the author).

Please note that for questions 1 and 2, it is not necessarily possible an article being good or very good in both.

The scientific relevance of the article is:
( ) bad ( ) regular ( ) good ( ) very good

The relevance for innovation or updating for professional performance is:
( ) bad ( ) regular ( ) good ( ) very good

The article is original:
( ) yes ( ) no ( ) partially

The article must be:
( ) accepted
( ) accepted with revision smaller
( ) accepted with further revision
( ) rejected

Important: to guarantee confidentiality, we ask that you do not leave any personal identification in the review document.

Final aspects (this item will not be sent to the author).

Please note that for questions 1 and 2, it is not necessarily possible an article being good or very good in both.

1. The scientific relevance of the article is:
   ( ) bad ( ) regular ( ) good ( ) very good
2. The relevance for innovation or updating for performance professional is:
   ( ) bad ( ) regular ( ) good ( ) very good

3. The article is original:
   ( ) yes ( ) no ( ) partially
4. The article must be:

( ) accepted
( ) accepted with minor revision
( ) accepted with revision bigger
( ) rejected

Important: To guarantee confidentiality, we ask that you do not leave any personal identification in the review document.

Back to top

Technical Notes Review Guide

The review

Review of technical notes:

• contributes to the technical-scientific, regulatory and methodology of the published document;
• confirms the relevance, timeliness, feasibility and applicability of information presented;
• evaluates the clarity, coherence and usefulness of recommendations, guidelines or summaries proposed for the target audience;
• contributes to the identification of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, conflicts of interest or inappropriate use of fonts;
• strengthens the dissemination of technical-scientific information in a ethical, responsible and grounded;
• contributes to the qualification of professional practice, management, health education, decision-making and translation of knowledge for services and society.

As?

The reviewer must:

• produce a clear, objective and well-founded opinion for authors and editor;
• indicate, when necessary, adjustments that improve clarity, consistency, justification and applicability of the technical note, signaling whether the corrections are mandatory for approval or only suggestions for improvement;
• send the review document or response regarding acceptance to BJHP or not of the invitation, within the established deadline;
• include constructive suggestions and comments, preferably organized by numbered topics to facilitate assistance by authors;
• differentiate comments based on evidence, standards or guidelines those based on opinion or professional experience;
• point out any inconsistencies, weaknesses, gaps or risks inadequate interpretation of recommendations;
• treat the manuscript and its attachments as documents of absolute confidentiality, the use of which is expressly prohibited, appropriation, retention or sharing of any data or recommendation before its official publication.

Comments to the author and editor or only to the editor

Comments to the author and editor should address, when applicable:

• the technical-scientific, professional, health, educational, regulatory or institutional technical note;
• the suitability of the document to the scope and quality criteria of the BJHP;
• clarity of the purpose, target audience and applicability of the note technique;
• the sufficiency and timeliness of the legal, regulatory or scientific used;
• the coherence between reasoning, recommendations and conclusion;
• the suitability of the document for publication and, if not suitable, the reasons for this recommendation.

Comments exclusive to the editor must expressly indicate the appropriateness of the document for publication and, if the manuscript is considered inadequate, detail the technical and strategic reasons for this recommendation. This field must also be used to signal confidentially any suspicion of plagiarism, duplicity or conflicts of interests not declared by the authors. These comments are strictly confidential and will not be informed to the authors in any way. hypothesis.

Use of generative artificial intelligence

Before starting the evaluation, the reviewer must read and observe the Policy BJHP's use of generative artificial intelligence [insert hyperlink to policy on BJHP website]. O content of technical notes, supplementary documents and other materials received in the editorial process is confidential and should not be entered on external generative artificial intelligence tools. The review must remain under human responsibility, with the reviewer being responsible for confidentiality, impartiality, integrity and quality technical-scientific aspect of the opinion issued.

Before you start

Before accepting or declining an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

1. The topic of the technical note is in accordance with your area of activity, experience, research or knowledge?
2. Is there any conflict of interest (recent professional relationship with the authors, work in the same health service or interest commercial/institutional) that may influence, or be perceived How can you influence your assessment?
3. You will be able to carry out the review and deliver the opinion within the deadline requested by BJHP?
4. The technical note involves a sensitive, regulatory, institutional or professional that requires additional attention to the accuracy of recommendations?

If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform BJHP before accepting the review.

The reviewer must carefully read the Submission Guide for Technical Notes and check whether the document meets the specific BJHP template.

The identity of the reviewer is confidential information, maintained by the Secretariat BJHP Administrative and Editorial Board.

Reviewing the document and attachments

Acceptance of the review invitation and the review process will be carried out exclusively on the BJHP platform.

When accepting the review, the reviewer must treat the material received as document of absolute confidentiality, and should not use it, share it or pass it on to third parties under no circumstances.

The technical note must be evaluated considering its nature of technical-technological product, and not as an article original scientific. Therefore, the assessment must consider mainly:

• clarity and relevance of the topic;
• relevance and applicability of content;
• adequacy of the technical-scientific foundation;
• coherence, feasibility and security of the proposed recommendations;
• quality, fluidity and clarity of writing;
• adherence to the official BJHP template;
• respect for ethical, legal, regulatory and editorial principles.

Suggestions to remedy deficiencies are important. Whenever possible, the reviewer must explain the reason for the adjustment request, indicating whether the comment arises from scientific evidence, technical document, standard, legislation, guideline, professional experience or understanding editorial.

Script for preparing the opinion

1. Identification: Start the document by stating the provisional number, if applicable, and the title of the technical note.
2. General appreciation: write a brief comment contextualizing the relevance, pertinence, applicability and technical-scientific contribution of the document.
3. Scope analysis and editorial adequacy: let us know if the technical note is appropriate to the scope of the BJHP, the modality of technical-technological product accepted by the magazine and the standards specific to technical notes.
4. Topic-specific analysis: present comments and suggestions according to the organization adopted by the authors in the document. The technical note may be structured into sections or presented in continuous text; therefore, the assessment must consider whether the essential elements are adequately covered, even that do not appear as formal sections. For topics without comments, one can register “without suggestions or observations”.
5. Classification of demands: clearly indicate and preferably in numbered topics, which adjustments are essential for eventual publication and what are suggestions for improvement.
6. Final recommendation: Finally, present your editorial recommendation in the specific field: accepted, minor revision, major review or rejection, justifying your choice.

Checklist and tips for revision

The technical note can be organized into structured parts or in text continuous, according to the nature of the topic, the purpose of the document and the BJHP template. Therefore, the reviewer's assessment should not require a fixed structure of sections, but check that the essential elements for technical-scientific quality, clarity, applicability and editorial responsibility are adequately addressed in the document.

Formal identification and compliance

Check if:

• the title is clear, concise, informative and consistent with the content of the technical note;
• the title is appropriate to the form “Technical Note XX/202X - Title”, considering that the definitive numbering will be assigned by BJHP Administrative Secretariat after acceptance;
• the authors are identified by their full name, without abbreviations;
• institutional affiliations are adequately presented;
• the corresponding author is indicated with full name, registration ORCID and email;
• there is no undue information about positions, functions in the membership;
• the document is in strict accordance with the official template technical note from BJHP.

Graphic summary

Check that the graphical summary:

• is present in the document, as required by the templatem and also sent as a separate file on the platform;
• clearly and synthetically represents the main content of the note technique;
• uses image, flowchart, diagram, algorithm, illustration or other adequate and high-resolution visual resource (minimum 300 dpi);
• presents good visual quality and potential for use in publicity scientific;
• contains few words or short sentences when necessary;
• is consistent with the central message of the document.

Clarity, purpose and target audience

Check whether the technical note presents, even without a specific section:

• sufficient contextualization to understand the topic;
• solid justification for its preparation;
• clear and well-defined purpose;
• identifiable target audience;
• technical-scientific, professional, sanitary, regulatory relevance, educational or institutional;
• understandable description of the problem, demand, gap, controversy or need that motivated the document;
• appropriate technical language that is accessible to the intended audience.

Technical-scientific foundation

Check that the content presented:

• is based on reliable and relevant sources;
• uses scientific evidence, technical documents, standards, legislation, guidelines, protocols, manuals or references recognized, when applicable;
• presents current and sufficient references to support the information, interpretations, recommendations or guidance;
• differentiates, when necessary, consolidated evidence, institutional recommendations, regulatory requirements and opinions or professional experiences;
• does not present categorical statements or generalizations without support adequate sources or data;
• is consistent with the scope of the BJHP and the purpose of a note technique.

Transparency of preparation

As it is a technical note, no formal scientific method is required similar to that of original articles. Still, the document must allow the reader to understand, where applicable, how the information have been gathered or analyzed.

Check whether the technical note clarifies, in proportion to its purpose:

• which sources, documents, standards, guidelines, databases or references were used to construct the text;
• if its elaboration derives from a literature review, analysis documentation, normative analysis, expert consensus, institutional experience, technical report, extension action, demand for service or other technical-scientific procedure;
• whether there is minimal transparency about the origin of the information that support the document;
• whether any limitations, uncertainties, biases or gaps are indicated when relevant.

Recommendations, guidance or practical implications

When the technical note presents recommendations, guidelines or practical implications, check whether they:

• are clear, objective, viable and applicable;
• are directly related and supported by the foundation presented;
• do not unduly extrapolate evidence, standards or documents used;
• indicate cautions, limitations or application conditions, when necessary;
• are written in a responsible and ethical manner;
• contribute to professional practice, management, teaching, research, public policy, health care or safe decision making.

Coherence, organization and writing

Check if:

• the text has a logical sequence and facilitates the reader's understanding;
• ideas are articulated in a coherent and integrated way;
• there are no excessive repetitions, contradictions or disconnected sections;
• the language is clear, objective, precise and compatible with the purpose technical-scientific note;
• technical terms, acronyms and concepts are defined when necessary;
• the central message of the technical note is easily identifiable;
• the document presents adequate closure, even if there is no section formal conclusion.

Ethical, legal and regulatory aspects

Check whether the document includes, when applicable:

• relevant professional or health standards;
• current legislation;
• ethical aspects related to the topic;
• need for approval by the Research Ethics Committee or Committee of Ethics in the Use of Animals, when there is use of data or information that requires it;
• registration with SisGen, when relevant;
• Be careful with copyright when using images, figures, pictures, tables, flowcharts or third-party materials.

Figures, graphs, tables, charts, images, flowcharts and algorithms</strong >

Check if:

• all elements are necessary and contribute to understanding the technical note;
• there is a maximum of 5 (five) illustrative elements in total (sum combination of figures, graphs, tables, charts or images);
• all visual and tabular elements are explicitly sane cited in the text;
• titles and subtitles are clear, objective, standardized and self-explanatory;
• tables are correctly inserted in the body of the document;
• figures, graphs, images and tables are adequately identified and sent according to BJHP guidelines;
• there is no unnecessary duplication between text and visual elements;
• third-party materials have a source, authorization or license to use, when applicable.

Acknowledgments, funding and conflicts of interest

Check if:

• there is a declaration of conflicts of interest;
• there is information about financing, institutional support, scholarships, projects, contracts, cooperation or other forms of support, when applicable;
• people who contributed but do not meet the authorship criteria, were mentioned in acknowledgments, when relevant.

The reviewer must observe whether, in the absence of conflict of interest, the authors obligatorily included the phrase: “The authors declare that they do not there is a conflict of interest.”

References

Check if:

• All references cited in the text are included in the list of references and vice versa (ensuring the perfect citation link);
• references are current, relevant and reliable;
• there is adequate use of technical documents, standards, guidelines, legislation or scientific articles, depending on the topic;
• references strictly follow the format required by BJHP;
• DOI and URL were included when available;
• there is no excess of secondary, outdated sources, little reliable or without public access;
• information, interpretations, recommendations or guidance presented are adequately supported by the sources cited.

Final aspects

This item will not be sent to authors.

The technical-scientific relevance of the technical note is:
( ) bad
( )regular
( ) good
( ) very good

The relevance for professional practice, management, education, politics public or decision making is:
( ) bad
( ) regular
( ) good
( ) very good

The technical-scientific basis of the technical note is:
( ) insufficient
( ) partially adequate
( ) adequate
( ) very suitable

The applicability of recommendations, guidance or practical implications is:
( ) low
( ) moderate
( ) high
( ) very high

The technical note is original in terms of organization, approach or technical-scientific contribution?
( ) Yes
( ) no
( ) partially

Does the technical note comply with the BJHP template and standards?
( ) Yes
( ) no
( ) partially

The technical note must be:
( ) accepted
( ) accepted with revision smaller
( ) accepted with further revision
( ) rejected

Important: To ensure confidentiality, we ask that the reviewer does not leave any personal identification in the review document.

  

   

Back to top