Authors Guidelines


Sudan JMS Aim & Scope


Sudan JMS publishes peer reviewed original articles, case reports, Letter to the Editor and commentaries. To encourage medical research among the increasing staff of the wide spread colleges of medicine in this country Sudan. Sudan JMS will reserve a space for articles from other diversities of the medical profession. These articles could be written by administrators, pharmacists, medical officers in remote areas, technicians, nursing staff, nutrition specialists or other paramedical personnel after the judgement of Sudan JMS editorial board.





1- Authorship:

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

1.      Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.

2.      Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

3.      Final approval of the version to be published.

4.      Agreement 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.

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship, should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged.


2- Confidentiality:

Manuscripts are reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality. We are not disclosing any information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings. We always remined our reviewer that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, both reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and they are prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the permission of the editor. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. If an article is rejected all related data are destroyed. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise made public without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor. For more details go to http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/archives/2005_urm.pdf .


3- Plagiarism:

COPE classify plagiarism as: extent, originality of the copied material, context, referencing, intention, author seniority, and language. Sudan JMS responses to plagiarism are based on COPE recommendations. See here for more details.


4- Responsibilities of authors and Copyright:

 The authors are entirely responsible for accuracy of all statements and data (including drug dosages) contained in the manuscript. The corresponding author will receive an edited manuscript for “final author approval”. The author should review this carefully, as he is responsible for all changes in the final version of the manuscript.  All articles published represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of Sudan JMS. Copyright are belonging to authors, and Sudan JMS is identified as original publisher. Third party has right to use article as long as authors and publisher identified.


5- Bioethics:

All manuscripts reporting the results of experimental investigation involving human subjects should include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from each subject or subject’s guardian, after ethical approval of the experimental protocol by a local human ethics committee.






Manuscript preparation


1-      Manuscript format:

The format of Sudan JMS complies with “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals”, as published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1979 (the widely accepted “Vancouver style “), as described in the Annals of Internal Medicine(1982,96 [pt 1] 114-29 for guidance. Manuscripts, including tables, references, and figure legends, must be typewritten, double spaced, on 8 ½ x 11 inch (21.5x 28 cm) on size A4 paper, with margins of at least one inch (2.5cm). Times New Roman is the preferred font type with font size 12. Pages should be numbered consecutively, beginning with the title page, and continuing through the last page of typewritten material.

2-      Title Page:

The title page must contain:

(A) Title of the article.

(B) Correct names of each authors, Each author’s official academic and/or clinical title, Email of each authors, And Name, and address of the institution(s).

(C) Name and address of author to whom correspondence should be sent.

(D) Any disclaimers (An example of a disclaimer is an author's statement that the views expressed in the submitted article are his or her own and not an official position of the institution or funder). 

(E) The author contributions:

1- Study concept and design or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.

2-      Drafting the article, or Revising it critically for important intellectual content.

3-      Final Approval of the version to be published.

4-      Agreement to be Accountable for Accuracy and Integrity of all aspects of the work.

(F) Cover letter (you must address the covering letter to the Sudan JMS demonstrating that your work is original, it is importance, not considered for publication elsewhere,transfer copyrights to the journal and it should be signed by all authors).            





Articles types


A) Original Research article



Research articles should report on original primary research. Sudan JMS encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible.


All original articles must contain an abstract of not more than 250 words. The abstract should provide the background for the study and should state the study's objectives, methodology (selection of study participants, settings, measurements, analytical methods), Results (giving specific effect sizes and their statistical and clinical significance, if possible, and conclusions. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations, note important limitations, and not over interpret findings.

Key word

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

Introduction (background):

Provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance). State the 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.

Materials and Methods:

The study design and methods, definitions such as for diagnostic criteria, the population or patient samples, and laboratory and statistical methods, the guiding principle of the Methods section should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way. Methods section should aim to be sufficiently detailed such that others with access to the data would be able to reproduce the results. In general, the section should include only information that was available at the time the plan or protocol for the study was being written; all information obtained during the study belongs in the Results section. If an organization was paid or otherwise contracted to help conduct the research (examples include data collection and management), then this should be detailed in the methods. Clearly describe the selection of observational or experimental participants (healthy individuals or patients, including controls), including eligibility and exclusion criteria and a description of the source population.

Specify the study's main and secondary objectives–usually identified as primary and secondary outcomes. Identify methods, equipment (give the manufacturer's name and address in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods; provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well-known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give the 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. Identify appropriate scientific names and gene names.

Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to judge its appropriateness for the study and 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 P values, which fail to convey important information about effect size and precision of estimates.


Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and figures, giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat all the data in the tables or figures in the text; emphasize or summarize only the most important observations. Provide data on all primary and secondary outcomes identified in the Methods Section. Extra or supplementary materials and technical details can be placed in an appendix where they will be accessible but will not interrupt the flow of the text, or they can be published solely in the electronic version of the journal.

Give numeric results not only as derivatives (for example, percentages) but also as the absolute numbers from which the derivatives were calculated, and specify the statistical significance attached to them, if any. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess supporting data. 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.”

Separate reporting of data by demographic variables, such as age and sex, facilitate pooling of data for subgroups across studies and should be routine, unless there are compelling reasons not to stratify reporting, which should be explained.


Conclusions based on the findings, evidence from the literature that supports the conclusions, conflicting evidence, applicability of the conclusions, and implications for future research or clinical applications.

It is useful to begin the discussion by briefly summarizing the main findings, and explore possible mechanisms or explanations for these findings. Emphasize the new and important aspects of your study and put your finings in the context of the totality of the relevant evidence. State the limitations of your study, and explore the implications of your findings for future research and for clinical practice or policy. Do not repeat in detail data or other information given in other parts of the manuscript, such as in the Introduction or the Results section.

Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not adequately supported by the data. Distinguish between clinical and statistical significance, and avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless the manuscript includes the appropriate economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority or alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypotheses when warranted, but label them clearly.



B) Systemic review


Systematic reviews, as the name implies, typically involve a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived a priori, with the goal of reducing bias by identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a particular topic. Systematic Reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice and provide an evidence-based, balanced, patient-oriented review on a focused topic.


All Systemic review articles must contain an abstract of not more than 350 words. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.


Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS process).


1) Protocol and registration, indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. 2) Eligibility criteria, specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. 3) Information sources, describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. 4) Search, Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. 5) Study selection, State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). 6) Data collection process, describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. 7) Data items, List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.8) Risk of bias in individual studies, describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. 9) Summary measures, State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). 10) Synthesis of results, Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 11) Risk of bias across studies, specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). 12) Additional analyses, describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.            


Study selection, give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. Study characteristics, for each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. Risk of bias within studies, Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment. Results of individual studies, for all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Synthesis of results, Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. Risk of bias across studies, Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies. Additional analysis, give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).


Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).


Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.



C) Case report


Please ensure that all patient data has been de-identified and that you obtained the necessary approval, if necessary, from an ethics commission or an institutional review board. The following guideline based on CARE guidance.


In about 200 words summarize the following information if relevant: (1) Introduction, rationale for this case report, (2) Case presentation, presenting concerns of the patient (such as chief complaints or symptoms, diagnoses), Interventions (such as diagnostic, preventive, prognostic, therapeutic exchange), and outcomes. (3) Conclusion, main lesson to learn from this case report.

Key Words

Provide 2 to 7 key words that will help potential readers search for and find this case report.


Briefly summarize the background and context of this case report. The current standard of care and contributions of this case—with references (1-2 paragraphs).

Case presentation

1) Presenting Concerns. Describe the patient characteristics (such as the relevant demographics—age, gender, ethnicity, occupation) and their presenting concerns with relevant details of related past interventions. 2) Clinical Findings. Describe the medical, family, and psychosocial history including lifestyle and genetic information; other pertinent co-morbidities and interventions (other therapies including self-care); and the physical examination (PE) focused on the important findings including results from testing. Timeline. Create a timeline that includes specific dates and times in a table, figure, or graphic. 3) Diagnostic Focus and Assessment. Provide an assessment of the diagnostic methods (including laboratory testing, imaging results, questionnaires, referral diagnostic information); diagnostic challenges (such as limited ability to complete an evaluation, patient availability, cultural); diagnostic reasoning including other diagnoses considered, and prognostic characteristics (such as staging in oncology) where applicable. 4) Therapeutic Focus and Assessment. Describe the types of interventions (such as pharmacologic, surgical, preventive, lifestyle, self-care) and administration and intensity of the intervention (including dosage, strength, duration, frequency). 5) Follow-up and Outcomes. Please describe the clinical course of this case including all follow-up visits as well as intervention modification, interruption, or discontinuation, and the reasons; adherence to the intervention and how this was assessed; and adverse effects or unanticipated events.6) Please describe patient-reported outcomes, clinician assessed and reported outcomes, and important positive and negative test results.

Discussion or Comments

Please describe the strengths and limitations of this case report including case management, and the scientific and medical literature related to this case report. Discuss the rationale for your conclusions such as potential causation and the ways this case might be generalized to a larger population. Finally, Conclusion what are the main findings of this case report and what are the 'take-away' messages?








1-      Acknowledgements:

  Contributors who didn’t meet criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they          

  should be acknowledged.

2-      Ethics approval:

 For human or animal research and consent to participate or consent for publication in case  

reports. And Ethical Commit approval of Affiliation that study run with their permission.

3-      Competing interests:

Authors should specify that there is nothing to disclosed or they are disclosing 1- any funding that may interfere with study. 2- any relationship or activity that interfere with study. Click here for more details.

4-      Availability of data and material:

5-      Funding.

6-      Abbreviations and Symbols:

Use only standard abbreviations; use of nonstandard abbreviations can be confusing to readers. Avoid abbreviations in the title of the manuscript. The spelled-out abbreviation followed by the abbreviation in parenthesis should be used on first mention unless the abbreviation is a standard unit of measurement.









Each table should be typed double-spaced, including all headings. Verify tabular statistics to make sure they tally and match data cited in the text. Put in fallowing result section. Tables capture information concisely and display it efficiently; they also provide information at any desired level of detail and precision. Including data in tables rather than text frequently makes it possible to reduce the length of the text. Number tables consecutively in the order of their first citation in the text and supply a title for each. Titles in tables should be short but self-explanatory, containing information that allows readers to understand the table's content without having to go back to the text. Be sure that each table is cited in the text. Give each column a short or an abbreviated heading. Authors should place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading. Explain all nonstandard abbreviations in footnotes, and use symbols to explain information if needed. If you use data from another published or unpublished source, obtain permission and acknowledge that source fully. Additional tables containing backup data too extensive to publish in print may be appropriate for publication in the electronic version of the journal, deposited with an archival service, or made available to readers directly by the authors. An appropriate statement should be added to the text to inform readers that this additional information is available and where it is located.









Captions for the figures must be typed, double-spaced, and must not appear on the figures.  For X-ray films, scans, and other diagnostic images, as well as pictures of pathology specimens or photomicrographs, send high-resolution photographic image files. Photomicrographs should have internal scale markers. Symbols, arrows, or letters used in photomicrographs should contrast with the background. Explain the internal scale and identify the method of staining in photomicrographs. Figures should be numbered consecutively according to the order in which they have been cited in the text. If a figure has been published previously, acknowledge the original source, and submit written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce it. Permission is required irrespective of authorship or publisher except for documents in the public domain. In the manuscript, legends for illustrations should be 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. And send it in separate file.










References are to be listed, double-spaced, in consecutive numerical order according to the order of citation in the manuscript. Once a reference is cited, all subsequent citations should be to the original number. All references must be cited in the text or tables and appear as superscript number without brackets. Unpublished data and personal communications will not be accepted as references. References (Vancouver style) to journal articles should include, in this order: (1) authors. (2) title. (3) journal name (as abbreviated in Index Medicus). (4) year. (5) volume and issue number, and (6) inclusive page numbers. References to books should include (1) authors (2) chapter title (if any), (3) editor's names (if any), (4) title of book. (5) City of publication, (6) publisher and (7) year. Volume and edition numbers and specific page numbers should be included when appropriate. The authors are responsible for their correct textual citation.  Use of citation managers is encouraged.









Peer-review policy


First editor evaluates the article, if it meets our publication interest it will be send directly to double blind peer-review. According to reviewer comments editor made a decision based on several category’s

1-      Accept in present form.

2-      Accept after minor revision.

3-      Re-Submit after major revision.

4-      Reject.





All articles published represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of Sudan JMS.


Copyright © Sudan JMS.
All Rights Reserved