Author Guidelines

Preparation of Manuscripts

Manuscript Format
Manuscripts must be typed double–spaced with margins of at least 25 mm (1 inch) with font 12.  Pages and lines have to number consecutively. All line numbers should be provided on the left margin of the page, and every line should be numbered. Please number all pages continuously and do not restart the line.

Research Paper
Page 1, Running Title (Capitalized each word), a maximum of 40 spaces and letters;
Page 2, Title Page, provide the full title (Capitalized each word), full name(s) of author(s), highest awarded academic degree, institutional affiliation(s), address(es), and acknowledgement of financial support (grant number, institution and location).
For example:
Rami Saadeh; Ph.D.¹, Nancy Abdulrahim; M.D.², Mahmoud Alfaqih; Ph.D.³, Yousef Khader; Ph.D.¹
1 Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
2 Jordanian Ministry of Health, Amman, Jordan
3 Departments of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
Page 3, Capsule, a 30-word summary of the abstract, which will be published in the Table of Contents. The final conclusions should be described;
Page 4, Structured Abstract, and "Keywords". The abstract should present the study Objective, Materials & Methods, Results, and Conclusions. Emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observation. Word limitation, 150-300 words. Below the abstract provide and identify as such, 3 to 8 key words or short phrases according to the Mesh terms (PubMed) that will assist indexers in cross–indexing the article. They should separate by semicolons.
The following components should be identified after the abstract: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgments, References, Tables and Legends.
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. The order of authorship should be a joint decision of the coauthors. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content.

• Cluster randomized trials must be reported according to CONSORT extended guidelines.
• Randomized trials that report harms must be described according to extended CONSORT guidelines.
• Studies of diagnostic accuracy must be reported according to STARD guidelines.
• Systematic reviews must be written according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines.
• Observational studies (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional designs) must be reported according to the STROBE statement.

Acknowledgments
Persons who have contributed intellectually to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be named and their function or contribution described, e.g. "design and conduct of the study", "data collections", "management, analysis and interpretation of the data", "preparation, review or approval of the manuscript", "scientific adviser", or "participation in clinical trial". Such persons must have given their permission to be named. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission from the persons acknowledged by name, because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions.

Financial supports, the specific role of the funding organization and any conflicts of interest must be mentioned.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on the work. Although an author may not feel there is any conflict, disclosure of relationships and interests provides a more complete and transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work.
Awareness of a real or perceived conflicts of interest is a perspective to which the readers are entitled. This is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation received for consultancy work is inappropriate.
Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following:
Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
Honoraria for speaking at symposia
Financial support for attending symposia
Financial support for educational programs
Employment or consultation
Support from a project sponsor
Position on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships
Multiple affiliations
Financial relationships, for example equity ownership or investment interest
Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights)
Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have financial interest in the work
In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research.
The corresponding author collects the conflict of interest disclosure forms from all authors. In author collaborations where formal agreements for representation allow it, it is sufficient for the corresponding author to sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors.

Researches involving human participants and/or animals
1) Statement of Human Rights
When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.
The following statements should be included in the text before the References section:
Topic
Statement
Ethical approval
Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For retrospective studies
Ethical approval: For this type of study formal consent is not required.
2) Statement on the Welfare of Animals
The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed, and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).
For studies with animals, the following statement should be included in the text before the References section:
Topic
Statement
Ethical approval
Ethical approval: All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
If applicable (where such a committee exists)
Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.
If articles do not contain studies with human participants or animals by any of the authors, please select one of the following statements:
Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human
participants performed by any of the authors.
Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent
All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have, for example, the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken.
Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt.
For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
The following statement should be included: Topic, Statement, Informed consent
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
If identifying information about participants is available in the article.
Informed consent: Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

Units of measurement
Measurements of length and height, weight and volume should be reported in metric units (meter, kilogram, or liter), or their decimal multiples. Temperatures should be given in degrees Celsius. All hematologic and clinical–chemistry measurements should be reported in the metric system in conventional units. If values are represented in SI units, the conversion factor must be included.

Statistical validation
When describing statistical analyses that have been performed, tests that were used to evaluate a specific data set must be clearly indicated. When data are presented in tables, indicate the statistical test(s) that was used to evaluate the data with a footnote. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols.

References
Number the references consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text. Indicate references by number(s) in parentheses (), in line with the text. The actual authors can be referred to, but the reference number(s) must always be given. References appearing for the first time in "tables" and "figures" must be numbered in sequence with those cited in the text where the table or figure is mentioned.
Abstracts, unpublished observations, and personal communications may not be used as references, although written, not oral communications may be inserted may be used as references. Papers accepted but not yet published can be references as the same but add "In press" at the end of the reference. Information from manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted should be cited in the text as "unpublished observations" (in parentheses).
The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus. List all authors in an article but if the number exceeds six, give six followed by et al.

Examples of references
Journal Article: Takihara H, Sakatoku J, Cockett ATK. The pathophysiology of varicocele in male infertility. Fertil Steril 1991; 55(5): 861–8.
Books: Colson JH, Armour WJ. Sports injuries and their treatment. 2nd ed. London: S. Paul, 1986.
Article in Press: Lillywhite HB, Donald JA. Pulmonary blood flow regulation in an aquatic snake. Science. In press.
Letter: Kremer J. Yardsticks for successful donor insemination [letter]. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 1023–4.
Reference to a chapter in an edited book: Mettam GR, Adams LB. How to prepare an electronic version of your article. In: Jones BS, Smith RZ, editors. Introduction to the electronic age, New York: E-Publishing Inc; 2009, p. 281–304.
Reference to a website: Cancer Research UK, Cancer statistics reports for the UK. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutcancer/statistics/cancerstatsreport/, 2003 (accessed 13 March 2003).

Tables, Illustrations, Legends & Permission
Tables: Should be typed double–spaced on separate pages, and they should be titled and numbered in ara-bic numerals in the order of their first citation in the text. Do not submit tables as photographs. Give each column a short heading. Place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading. For footnotes use the following symbols, in this sequence: a, b, c, d, e, f. Do not use internal horizontal and vertical rules.
Illustrations: Figures should be submitted in a separate file. Authors should declare in the cover letter that all figures of their manuscripts are original, otherwise the original source of figures should be mentioned. All Figures should be in the form of encapsulated postscript (.eps), power point (.ppt), portable document format (.pdf), Photoshop (.psd), TIF (.tiff), PNG (png) or JPG (.jpg).The raw data of the charts should be uploaded in Microsoft excel format (MS Office 2007 or newer). Please scan all images in at least 300dpi. Most consumer scanners scan in sRGB by default. However, if you are using a high-end scanner then Adobe RGB is recommended for optimum color depth. Colorspace should be in RGB.
Image quality specification for Line art (an image composed of lines and text which does not contain tonal or shaded areas) has a resolution of 900 dpi, halftone (a continuous tone photograph which contains no text) with 300 dpi and combination of both should have 500 dpi of resolution.
Capital letters should be used for specific areas of identification in a figure. Symbols, lettering, and numbering should be distinctly recognizable so that when the figure is reduced for publication each item will still be legible. Titles and detailed explanations belong in the legends for illustrations, not on the illustrations themselves. Slides are not acceptable. There is a page charge for color photographs, with the exception of color graphs and color charts.
There is a maximum of one illustration and/or table for every "600" words (approximately "3" typewritten pages).
Legends: Type legends double–spaced in consecutive order on a separate page.

RCTs
Submission of RCTs must include reference to ethics approval (or explanation of why ethics approval was not received). Authors must consult the CONSORT statement and checklist (http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/) and submit a CONSORT flow chart as an editable figure in Word/PowerPoint format. Information regarding power calculations must be included for RCTs.

RCT registration
All RCTs must be registered in an approved clinical trial registry. You can find more information about trial registration and what counts as a “health-related intervention” and a “health outcome” on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). You should always register clinical trials before the first patient is enrolled. Trials that began before January 1, 2016, the JFRH will consider "retrospective registration" that means registration at late stage. However, supporting information and retrospective registration would be required prior to peer-review. The clinical trials registration information should be included at the end of the abstract.

Review articles
A review article should focus on a topic of broad scientific interest, on recent advances in diagnosis and therapy, or on another timely subject relevant to the field of reproduction. Such articles must be concise and critical and include appropriate references to the literature. Reviews should not exceed 5,000 words in length, must include structured abstracts of 200 words or fewer, and must have no more than 100 references. The use of tables and color figures to summarize critical points is encouraged. Review articles are reviewed by the Editors and other expert reviewers before a final publication decision is made and revisions may be required.

Sample review articles

Narrative review
The structure includes:

• Title – in this case does not indicate that it is a review article
• Abstract – includes a description of subjects covered (Unstructured).
• Introduction includes a description of context, motivation for review, and defines the focus
• Body – structured by headings and subheadings
• Conclusion – states the implications of the findings and an identifies possible new research fields

Systematic review
The structure includes:

• Title – informs us it is a review
• Informative Abstract – informs us this is a meta-analysis (novel analysis in a novel context of previously published data)
• Introduction
• Body – Material & Methods, Results (including the use of tables and figures to display novel findings), Discussion
• Conclusion – a listing of novel findings of the meta-analysis

Letter to the Editor
This section of the journal is set aside for critical comments directed to a specific article that has recently been published in the journal. Letters should be brief (400 words), double–spaced, and limited to a maximum of 5 citations. The letters and replies should be prepared according to journal format. Illustrative material accepted only with permission of the Editor.

Case reports
Case reports should be succinct, informative, and limited to seven double–spaced pages of text (not including the running title, title page, capsule or abstract) and one table or one figure. The structured abstract consists of Objective, Case Report and Conclusion. The main text also consists of Objective, Case Report, discussion and Conclusion. The other parts are the same as research article.

Techniques and Instrumentation
Techniques and Instrumentation: is limited to seven double–spaced pages of text (not including the running title, title page, capsule, or abstract) and three illustrations (e.g. three figures OR two figures and one table).

Correspondence
Correspondence articles are letters addressed to the Editor with a short comment.  A Correspondence generally takes one of the following forms: 

• A substantial re-analysis of a previously published article in JFRH or in another journal.
• An article that may not cover 'standard research' but that is of general interest to the broad readership of JFRH.
• A brief report of research findings adequate for the journal's scope and of particular interest to the community.

Correspondence articles may be edited for clarity or length and may be subject to peer review at the editors' discretion. Correspondence should be limited to 1500 words (not including the running title, title page, capsule, or abstract) and a maximum of one figure or one table. Include a 2–sentence narrative abstract, but do not include section headings.

Cover Letter
A cover letter outlines the significance of the findings, the contribution of the individual authors, and any other information pertinent to the review and publication of the manuscript. If your paper has more than the allowed number of authors for the article type, your cover letter should also provide detailed information regarding each author’s contribution to the article. All financial support should also be stated in the cover letter.

Submission requirements

< Submit only the final version of the manuscript.

< The file should be in Microsoft Word.

< Provide the printout of the manuscript that exactly matches the disk file. File names must be clearly indicating the contents of each file.

< Prepare art as camera–ready copy. Laser prints are accepted.

Review process
The review process is double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers. Before sending to editorial office the manuscript is first evaluated by the general office for its accordance to primary format of JFRH and maybe sent back to the author for correcting its structural flaws within 2 weeks and resubmit the corrected version. The Editors then evaluate all manuscripts. In some circumstances it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.
Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review by at least 2 anonymous reviewers selected by the Editorial Board.
Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Revised manuscripts are returned to the editors and the editors may request further advice from the reviewers at this time. A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers.

Editorial review process
Authors are responsible for following the criteria for the manuscript categories listed above before submitting the article to the Editorial Office. Articles not meeting these criteria will be rejected immediately without going through to peer review. 
At submission authors will be asked to assign their article to a specialty subject area covered by the journal: obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine, reproductive medicine and endocrinology, gynecology, gynecology oncology and urogynecology. All articles will undergo an initial review by an Advisory Board Editor expert in a particular specialty area. Articles will be assessed for:
- having sound methodological structure
- reporting novel results
- driving the field forward
- being within the scope of the journal
- being written clearly and understandably for a reviewer to do his/her job properly, and
- a potential for FastTrack review and publication
Articles not meeting these criteria will be rejected immediately without going through to full peer review. 
Articles that have passed the initial review process are assigned by the Editorial Office to a Specialty Editor on the basis of the corresponding author's address. At least 2 independent reviewers are assigned per article for a systematic review of the article's aims, methodology, results and conclusions. 
Following peer review, articles may be accepted without revision, accepted pending minor revision, not accepted but eligible for re-submission following major revision, or rejected. No more than two revision cycles are permitted per article - articles that after two revisions have still not adequately addressed the reviewers and Specialty Editors concerns will be rejected.
Authors are advised that during the review process the reviewers and/or the Specialty Editor may request additional statistical and language review. These articles will be reviewed by respectively an independent Statistical Advisor and Language Editor to the journal, either of whom may subsequently request additional changes prior to final acceptance of the manuscript.

Response to Reviewers
Papers may be returned to authors for modification of the scientific content and/or for shortening and language corrections. Revised paper and a letter listing point–for–point response to the reviewers must be submitted to the "Editor" and must be accompanied by a copy of the original version. Please also track any changes made to your manuscript, highlighting new content and striking through deleted passages.
Suggestion by the Editor about resubmission does not imply that a revised version will necessary be accepted. If a paper that is returned to the authors for modification is not resubmitted within 2 weeks it will be regarded as having been withdrawn and any revised version received subsequently will be treated as a new paper and the date of receipt will be altered accordingly.
Authors who resubmit a paper that has previously been rejected must provide the original manuscript and a letter explaining in detail how the paper has been modified.
The right is reserved to incorporate any changes deemed necessary by the "Editor" to make contributions harmonize with the editorial standards of the journal. Accepted manuscripts become the property of Journal of family & Reproductive Health.

Changes to Authorship
This policy concerns the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship of accepted manuscripts:
Before the accepted manuscript is published in an online issue: Requests to add or remove an author, or to rearrange the author names, must be sent to the Journal Manager from the corresponding author of the accepted manuscript and must include: (a) the reason the name should be added or removed, or the author names rearranged and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, fax, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Requests that are not sent by the corresponding author will be forwarded by the Journal Manager to the corresponding author, who must follow the procedure as described above. Note that: (1) Journal Managers will inform the Specialty Editors of any such requests and (2) publication of the accepted manuscript in an online issue is suspended until authorship has been agreed.
After the accepted manuscript is published in an online issue: Any requests to add, delete, or rearrange author names in an article published in an online issue will follow the same policies as noted above and result in a corrigendum.
Revision: Papers may be returned to authors for modification of the scientific content and/or for shortening and language corrections. Revised paper and a letter listing point–for–point response to the reviewers must be submitted to the "Editor" and must be accompanyed by a copy of the original version.
Suggestion by the Editor about resubmission does not imply that a revised version will necessary be accepted. If a paper that is returned to the authors for modification is not resubmitted within two months it will be regarded as having been withdrawn and any revised version received subsequently will be treated as a new paper and the date of receipt will be altered accordingly.
Authors who resubmit a paper that has previously been rejected must provide the original manuscript and a letter explaining in detail how the paper has been modified.
The right is reserved to incorporate any changes deemed necessary by the "Editor" to make contributions harmonize with the editorial standards of the journal. Accepted manuscripts become the property of Journal of family & Reproductive Health.

Proofs
Proofs will be sent to the corresponding au-thor to be checked for only typographical errors and other essential small changes. Major alternations to the text cannot be accepted at this stage. Proofs must be returned to the Editor within 3 days of receipt.

Responsibilities of authors
The authors are responsible for accuracy of all statements and data contained in the manuscript, accuracy of all references information, and for obtaining and submitting permission from the author and publisher of any previously published material included in the submitted manuscript.

Ethics
JFRH is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). JFRH adheres strictly to the COPE guidelines on good publishing practice, and follows procedures set out in the COPE flowcharts when handling cases of suspected misconduct.
As part of our commitment to the protection and enhancement of the peer review process, JFRH has an obligation to assist the scientific community in all aspects of publishing ethics, especially in cases of (suspected) duplicate submission or plagiarism.
What happens if ethical misconduct is detected?
We would recommend that authors visit the flowcharts available at COPE's website, that detail the various decision processes that can follow any suspicion that a work is not original or ethical.
We take all instances of misconduct very seriously and will investigate each with care and attention, providing full support to the editor. Consequences for misconduct are as varied as the misconduct itself, and are determined on a case-by-case basis. In all cases, the author will be given the opportunity to provide an explanation for the misconduct. An editorial decision will only be made once the investigation is completed.
In most cases, we accept that the incorrect use of third party material is frequently a result of human error, or a misunderstanding of publication ethics. This is why we actively encourage authors to read our ethics policy and guidance on using third party material before submitting, to avoid these mistakes. In those cases where more serious misconduct is detected, consequences are proportionately more serious. Palgrave Macmillan reserves the right to request any and all information from the author concerning the creation of the work, to verify its originality. If no such evidence is provided or no satisfactory explanation given, then we may ban the author(s) from resubmitting to the journal for a determined period. In extreme cases, we may take the matter to the author's institution for their attention.
If ethical misconduct is discovered in content that has already been published, we may publish a statement of concern whilst the work is investigated. If we deem it necessary, the paper may be retracted with a statement of explanation. Other consequences may include a submissions ban for any or all authors, and contacting the relevant institution(s).

Withdraw a Manuscript Submitted to the Journal
Authors should not withdraw their submitted papers because the withdrawal wastes voluntary works devoted by an associate editor and reviewers. But the withdrawal of a submitted paper is accepted if authors have unavoidable reasons. After the paper is accepted for publication, the withdrawal is not permitted in principle.
It is not acceptable practice to withdraw a manuscript in the event of acceptance at another journal. In such circumstances JFRH may chose to impose appropriate punitive action subject to review by the Publications Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Copyright
All authors must sign the "submission form" agreement before the article can be processed. This transfer agreement enables Journal of Family & Reproductive Health to protect the copyright material for the authors, but does not relinquish the author’s proprietary rights.
The copyright transfer covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, photographic reproductions, microform or any other reproductions of similar nature and translations, and includes the right to adapt. 

Submission Preparation Checklist
As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

1. The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
2. The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.
3. Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
4. The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
5. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, which is found in About the Journal.
6. If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review have been followed.

Peer Review Policy

General information
We ask authors and peer-reviewers to submit their articles and reports via our secure online system. There is an online help guide to assist in using this system, and a helpdesk email account for any technical problems.

Editorial decisions
Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.