Submissions

Editorial

Editorial

Documento escrito por un editor, un miembro del Comité Editorial o un investigador invitado sobre orientaciones en el dominio técnico de la publicación a solicitud del Comité Editorial de Revista Conexiones Científicas, Neuroarte y Bienestar. Puede expresar el punto de vista sobre un problema de actualidad, no necesariamente relacionado con el contenido de la revista; también podría presentar el punto de vista de la revista referente a un tema, así como tratar sobre políticas editoriales.

Se compondrá de Título, Resumen, Texto, Firma del autor con su nivel curricular más alto, Referencias bibliográficas (máximo tres), si las tuviese.

Su extensión no deberá ser mayor de 1 000 palabras. No presentará gráficos, figuras ni tablas, salvo en justificadas excepciones.

Original Article

Original Article Guidelines

The Original Article presents information on the original and unpublished results of a research study. Many types of academic scientific work can be structured using the IMRYD format (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion). Therefore, the structure for all articles of this type includes: abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. Examples of common formats that can be adapted to IMRYD are: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed original articles; review and systematic review articles; case presentations; and academic essays.

General Format Requirements

• Length: The original article should contain no more than 6,000 words from the first word of the introduction to the last word of the conclusions (including tables, charts, and figures), and no more than 8,000 words from the first word of the abstract to the last word of the bibliographic references.

• IMRYD Priority: The original article is the most frequently published and cited type of article in the literature. Therefore, if you wish for your article to be published quickly, the IMRYD format is ideal, provided it can be adopted based on the originality of the data presented. We recognize that research is an innovative and creative process; thus, if your manuscript cannot be adapted to this format, you can always publish case presentations and reviews using their established formats.

References

• Minimum: All articles must have a minimum of 15 references.

• Recency/Source: 70% of the total references must come from scientific journals and academic books published within the last 5 years (including the year the manuscript is submitted to the journal), and should include literature in various languages. The remaining 30% may come from other, non-updated, or non-scientific sources.

• Style: The established style for all bibliographic references is Vancouver. The combined use of multiple formats in the same document will not be accepted. Each article must maintain a single citation style from beginning to end.

Original Article: Quantitative Nature

The article must contain a structured ABSTRACT that explicitly names each of the main parts of the original article: introduction, objective, method, results, and conclusions.

Introduction

The introduction should present the topic and the stated objectives, spanning 1 or 2 pages. This section guides the reader and provides context. It is suggested to avoid overly long sentences that may hinder the reader's comprehension.

• Brief general explanation of the problem.

• Research problem.

• Current state of the topic (literature review).

• Study objectives: clear, precise, measurable, achievable, and consistent with the type of study.

Methods

Correct elaboration ensures the replicability of the study. It must be written in the past tense (e.g., it was measured, it was counted).

• Type of study.

• Research context in time and space.

• Universe and sample (if applicable), briefly summarized.

• Selection criteria for subjects, if pertinent. Center(s) and Institution(s) where data were recorded.

• Variables and their brief operationalization.

• Techniques and procedures for obtaining information.

• Techniques and procedures for processing and analysis.

• Techniques and procedures for discussing results and arriving at conclusions.

• Ethical Aspects: Mention must be made of how the ethical aspects of scientific research were fulfilled. The research presented must comply with all ethical declarations for the types of studies (whether in humans or animals), such as the Declaration of Helsinki (link provided: https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/).

Results

The Results obtained in the research (What was found?) must be clearly presented, along with any advancements made. Results should be presented using tables and figures deemed necessary for better exposition quality. Charts, tables, and figures must include brief, clear, and precise descriptions. Font sizes smaller than 8 points should be avoided. No more than 6 tables, charts, and/or figures are permitted.

To ensure uniformity, present the interpreted results first, followed by the table, chart, and/or figure being referenced, after they have been identified in the text.

• Tables and Figures (including charts): They are numbered consecutively, in order of appearance, using Arabic numerals. They should be placed as close as possible to the point in the text where they are cited.

Discussion

This section should address the novel aspects contributed by the research. It is not a repetition of the results. (What is the significance of what I found?)

• Interpretation based on the study objectives.

• Discuss the limitations of the study, considering possible sources of bias or inaccuracy.

• Comparison with other similar national and international studies. Explore the possible causes for the differences found between expected and observed results.

Conclusions

There must be coherence between the objectives, study design, and analysis results. Conclusions are placed at the end of the article. This is not a mere repetition of the results. It involves recapitulating the most important findings of the work for the future of research on the topic addressed.

Bibliographic References

The references are listed in a numbered list, according to the order in which they were first cited, using the Vancouver style (guide link provided: https://uia.ac.cr/biblioteca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GUÍA-VANCOUVER-UIA.pdf).

• All cited publications must be included in a numbered reference list at the end of the document.

• Citations throughout the text are indicated by consecutive numbers (in superscript, enclosed in parentheses). Sequential citations are separated by a hyphen (e.g., (7–9)). These numbers refer to the order in which they were first cited; subsequent citations of the same source receive the same number. (Refer to the Vancouver style PDF on the journal's website).

• 70% of the references must be publications from the last 5 years for journal articles and 10 years for books.

• Citations of relevant and updated published documents should be included. Mention of personal communications and unpublished documents should be avoided; if essential, they should only be mentioned in the text in parentheses.

• All authors of the cited text must be listed; if there are 7 or more authors, the first 6 should be mentioned, followed by "et al."

• Journal titles should be abbreviated according to the Index Medicus (List of journals indexed in Index Medicus).

• No element should be highlighted using capitalization, bold text, or underlining.

• This style applies to all article types.

Original Article: Qualitative Nature

This format presents qualitative results of original research, involving a critical literature review, a theoretical stance, and potentially the development of definitions. It also includes proposals for models, strategies, methodologies, etc., which are novel contributions or results of the research.

This is a form of written composition intended to answer a specific question or solve a problem through logically expressed and duly supported arguments or affirmations, seeking to demonstrate the validity of the statement. It is used to encourage the authors' critical and independent judgment.

This type of work aims to offer a set of relevant evidence in favor of the position assumed or a systematic review that supports the proposed idea. It allows the expression of ideas, thoughts, criticisms, reflections, and final conclusions within the analysis of the treated topic.

It must include: Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, and Conclusions.

Abstract (Structured)

• Introduction (summary).

• Method.

• Conclusions.

• Keywords: Must be concrete and representative of the document's semantic content (both main and secondary). A minimum of 3 keywords or key phrases is required. The use of the DeCS thesaurus (Health Sciences Descriptors) is recommended (http://decs.bvs.br/E/homepagee.htm). MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) can also be consulted for the English language (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh).

Introduction

• Presents the background of the topic on which the researcher will take a position.

• The subject matter, the context of its analysis, and its relevance are delineated.

• The objective motivating the work (focused on evaluating, criticizing, developing, or designing) is stated.

Method

Describes the universal and particular methods used in the study, as well as qualitative techniques for data acquisition, processing, and analysis of information.

Results

Contains the idea(s) explained by the author(s). Systematization of the topic, with a critical analysis leading to the author's stance or definitions, is important. In the case of a proposal (guide, procedures, methodology, strategy, or model), its entire structure, supported by the systematic review conducted, must be presented. The Results obtained in the research (What was found?) must be correctly presented, along with any advancements made.

Discussion

Expresses the novelty of the research, methodological triangulation, identification of strengths and weaknesses, and comparison with other similar, previously designed results.

Conclusions or Final Considerations

There must be coherence between the objectives, the results of the analysis, according to the author's own ideas and the evidence provided. Conclusions are placed at the end of the article, in paragraph form. The section should recapitulate the most important findings of the work for the future of research on the topic addressed.

Bibliographic References

The same instructions described for the quantitative original article must be followed.

???? Original Article: Theoretical/Conceptual Nature

These are typically conceptual review or reflection articles, not empirical research. They do not always fit well into the IMRYD structure because they lack "methods" or "results" in the classical sense.

However, if the theoretical article develops a new model, proposal, or conceptual framework, it can be adapted:

• Introduction: Justification of the topic.

• Methods: How the framework was constructed (literature search, conceptual analysis, theoretical approach used).

• Results: The theoretical model or proposal being presented.

• Discussion: Comparisons with previous theories, implications, and limitations.

Original Article: Mixed Nature

For mixed-method original articles, the necessary aspects from both the quantitative and qualitative guidelines are adopted.

Review Article

Review Article Guidelines

Review articles are accepted up to 6,000 words, excluding bibliographic references, tables, and figures. This type of article refers to previously published documents; it compiles, analyzes, and synthesizes the current state of a particular topic. The author must state the purpose of the review, as well as the sources and methods used for searching references. Tables and figures may optionally be included. Review articles must be based on the most up-to-date bibliography available on the topic addressed.

Its fundamental characteristic is the large number of bibliographic references; a review article must include 25 to 50 citations. Although a review article may occasionally contain new data, its primary purpose is to examine previously published literature, place it in perspective, and offer a critical evaluation of it. It should reach important conclusions based on the analyzed works, but without taking a position (unless specified as a "critical review").

Structure

The article must contain a structured ABSTRACT:

• Introduction (summary).

• Procedures used for information gathering.

• Most relevant results.

• Conclusions or global considerations.

• Keywords: Must be concrete and representative of the document's semantic content (both main and secondary). A minimum of 3 keywords or key phrases is required. The use of the DeCS thesaurus (Health Sciences Descriptors) is recommended (http://decs.bvs.br/E/homepagee.htm). MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) can also be consulted for the English language (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh).

Introduction

This section can be longer than in other articles (up to 3 pages).

• Explanation of the problem under review.

• Emphasis on the questions or relevance of the review.

• Objectives of the work.

Methods (Information Gathering)

• Search sources.

• Search criteria: Clarify any restrictions established (e.g., period reviewed, language, etc.).

• Number of articles consulted.

• Number of articles selected.

• Inclusion/exclusion criteria for article selection.

• Observations for this section:

  • Validity Assessment: To evaluate the validity of the primary studies, the design and execution of the research reported in the selected articles must be analyzed. This can be done by assigning relative values to the data, using a standardized assessment.

  • Aspects to consider:

    • Scientific credibility of the source of the articles.

    • Reproducibility and objectivity of the assessments.

    • Variability of the results.

    • Correct combination of results.

    • Critiques must be made with sufficient detail so that readers can evaluate the methodological quality of the studies.

Analysis and Integration of Information (Do not use "Development"; use specific subtitles)

• A systematic foundation must be established among the articles, allowing the author to highlight the consistencies and/or contradictions in the literature (not a mere list of citations or summaries).

• Author(s)' interpretation.

Conclusions or Final Considerations

• Coherence between the objectives, the study design, and the analysis results.

• Placed at the end of the article.

Bibliographic References

• The same instructions described for the Original Article must be followed.

• A minimum of 70-80% of the literature must be from the last 5 years relative to the date the article is submitted for publication.

• Include references in multiple languages.

Systematic Review

Systematic Review Article Guidelines

Implementing the PRISMA Method in a Systematic Review

(Reference: https://tesisdoctoralesonline.com/metodo-prisma-que-es-y-como-usarlo-en-una-revision-sistematica)

While flow diagrams exist to illustrate how to apply the PRISMA method to research in specific knowledge areas, a checklist is often better for guiding a doctoral thesis that includes a systematic review, regardless of the field.

The use of the PRISMA method helps to ensure a high-quality systematic review. Though it may appear laborious initially, it has been developed to guarantee rigor in the results and streamline the work involved in conducting a systematic review, especially when it is a section of a doctoral thesis rather than the full thesis. The widespread acceptance of PRISMA is a guarantee, especially when concerned about bias or presenting information in an unstructured way. We believe this method will become the standard shortly, making familiarity essential.

PRISMA Implementation Checklist

1. Define the Research Question

When applying the PRISMA method to a systematic review, many elements align with other methods for selecting and presenting results. The most obvious is the formulation of the question that will guide your systematic review. It must be specific, clear, and address a problem or a topic of interest.

2. Develop a Review Protocol with Exhaustive Searches

You must develop a detailed protocol describing the objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study search and selection methods, and data extraction and analysis approaches, among other aspects. As with many protocols, you can break the task down into sequential and non-sequential objectives.

• Search relevant scientific databases using your keywords, utilizing advanced search options for an initial screening.

• Consult additional sources, such as the bibliographies of relevant studies.

3. Select the Studies

The inclusion and exclusion criteria must be documented beforehand in the protocol, but they should be reviewed again at this stage. After reviewing all articles, make a final decision about which studies to include or exclude. You can use titles and abstracts to streamline this task, as you will have meticulously reviewed them previously.

4. Data Extraction

• Create a data extraction form to systematically collect relevant information from the included studies.

• Variables should include participant characteristics, outcome measures, main results, and other pertinent data.

• The goal is to extract data systematically for each study to avoid potential biases, which is the focus of the next step.

5. Evaluate Study Quality

• Evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included studies.

• Use appropriate quality assessment tools and scales relevant to your research field.

• Don't overlook crucial factors like study design, sample size, the potential influence of chance, and bias control.

6. Analyze and Synthesize Data

• Draft a descriptive analysis of the included studies, summarizing the key characteristics and main results of each.

• If the data is suitable and there is reasonable and sufficient homogeneity among the studies, consider conducting a meta-analysis to statistically combine the results of multiple studies.

• Evaluate the statistical heterogeneity among the included studies using appropriate statistical analyses.

• Constantly consider the possibility of publication bias or other potential biases in the selected and analyzed studies.

7. Present and Discuss the Results

• Present the findings of your systematic review clearly and concisely. Utilize tables, charts, and other visual resources.

• Interpret the results and discuss their relevance concerning the research question posed initially. Eliminate any results that are not relevant.

• Briefly explain why these results are relevant: do they provide a new hypothesis or refute an accepted one? Do they serve as a starting point for future research? Do your findings appear to have fewer limitations than previous work?

8. Report Following PRISMA Guidelines

• Review the PRISMA reporting guidelines when drafting the final report of your systematic review.

• Your report must be transparent, complete, and reproducible, allowing other researchers to evaluate and utilize your findings if needed.

Further Resources

You may also review the following links (provided in the original document):

• https://biblioguias.unav.edu/revisionessistematicas/guias_oficiales

• https://www-prisma--statement-org.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=es&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=tc

• https://www-bmj-com.translate.goog/content/372/bmj.n160?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=es&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=tc

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300893221002748

Academic Essay

Essay Article Guidelines

An essay is essentially an articulation of your perspective on a topic, supported by rationale, arguments, and reliable sources.

Word Limit: Up to 6,000 words, excluding references.

Required Structure

Recommended Essay Lengths for the Journal

Case Report

Case Report Guidelines

A maximum of 3,500 words is accepted, including bibliographic references, and up to 6 illustrations (figures and tables). Emphasis will be placed on the importance of the techniques, diagnostic tools, therapeutic measures, rehabilitation methods, or any other type of Health Technology used in the case presentation or study.

Required Structure

Author Requirements for Case Report Submission

• Conflict of Interests: Is there a conflict of interest?

• Ethics Committee Approval: Has an ethics committee or institutional review board given its approval? If yes, provide the approval if requested.

• Removal of Identifying Information: Has identifying information been removed from all patient-related data?

Special Collaboration

Special Collaboration

Up to 3,500 words including references will be accepted. This will be carried out by commission or by presentation from authors with experience in the subject, capable of providing their own criteria based on scientific background.

SUMMARY of the collaboration.

• Explain the topic to be presented in synthesis.

• Questions, relevance, or objective(s) of the topic.

• Main comments.

• Global considerations.

EXPOSITION OF THE COMMENT or authoritative opinion.

• Briefly present the topic and final considerations with clarity, precision, and coherence.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES:

• The same instructions described for the original article will be used.

• A minimum of 70% of literature from the last 5 years, relative to the article's publication request date, is accepted. (Except for communication with original criteria, in which the bibliography may be referred to as consulted).