skip to Main Content
Special Journals Publisher - SJP - LER +256782101486 admin@spparenet.org
Excellence beyond expectations

    Author Details

    Manuscript Details

    Manuscript submission guide

    To submit a manuscript to the Special Journal of Law, Ethics, and Peace [SJ-LEP] we recommend the use of strobes guidelines or checklist as adapted from the strobe guideline for observational studies (STROBES) as indicated here  If you can say yes to all the questions, then you are ready to submit. You are advised to use the form above this checklist to submit your manuscript for consideration and publication in this Special Journal of Law, Ethics, and Peace [SJ-LEP] . We need only word format so it can be easy to adjust using tract changes.

    If you want to submit a non-observational study manuscript to this Special Journal of Law, Ethics, and Peace [SJ-LEP], you may wish to follow the authors’ information to comply with our writing format so as to pass editorial screening before papers are sent for external peer review! If the editorial office is not satisfied, your manuscript may be returned to you for attention! Thank you for choosing to publish with Special Journal of Law, Ethics, and Peace [SJ-LEP] 

    Submit with this checklist

    Adapted from the strobe guideline for observational studies (STROBES)

    S/N Section Question answer
    1 Title and abstract:  Study’s design in the title/abstract indicated
    2 Background/Rationale: Informative/balanced summary of methods and key results provided in the abstract
    3. Objective: Scientific background and rationale for reported investigation clearly explained
    4. Study design: Key elements of the study design presented
    5. Setting: The setting, locations, dates, periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection clearly described
    6. Participants: Study type, Eligibility/matching criteria, participants selection, case ascertainment, control  and follow up methods/source, number of exposed, unexposed,  and controls per case
    7. Variables: All outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers; diagnostic criteria, clearly defined
    8. Data source/measurement:  Sources of data, methods of assessment (measurement); describe comparability of assessment method(s) given in detail
    9 Bias: Efforts to address likely sources of bias defined
    10. Study size: How the study size was derived clearly outlined
    11. Quantitative variables How quantitative variables were analyzed include which groupings were chosen and why
    12. Statistical methods: All statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding, examine subgroups and interactions, address missing data, loss to follow-up, matching of cases and controls, analyze  sampling strategy and sensitivity  explained
    13 Participants: Numbers of individuals potentially, examined or confirmed eligible at each stage of the study and those included in the study or completing follow-up, and reasons for nonparticipation are clearly defined,   Consider the use of a flow diagram
    14. Descriptive data: Characteristics of study participants (e.g., demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders, number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest, summarize follow-up time (e.g., average and total amount) clearly defined
    15. Outcome data: Numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time, numbers in each exposure category, or summary measures of exposure and  numbers of outcome events or summary measures, outlined
    16. Main results: Have you given unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (e.g., 95% confidence interval); make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included, report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized.
    17 Other analysis: Subgroups, interactions, and sensitivities reported
    18. Key results: Key results in relation to study objectives reported
    19 Limitation: limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision; discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias
    20. Interpretation: Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, the multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence
    21 Generalizability: Discuss the generalizability (external validity) of the study results
    22. Funding: the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based  Funding

    Submit

    Back To Top
    Open chat
    Hi, Please, click to chat with us. We want to answer your questions!
    We use cookies in order to give you the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies.
    Accept