About the Journal

Focus and Scope

The journal 16 de Abril is an electronic journal of the University of Medical Sciences of Havana specialized in the p ublication of scientific articles related to Health Sciences , for its acceptance and publication is governed by the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts sent to Biomedical Journals, created by the Vancouver group, with some specifications due to the editorial interests of our publication. It is mainly aimed at the publication of research developed by undergraduate students of any of the biomedical careers, although we have a section especially dedicated to the publication of scientific articles written by professors. In the Journal 16 de Abril, authors can publish letters to the editor, editorials, original articles, review articles, case presentations, brief communications, history articles, abstract books, as well as special articles and opinion articles.

Peer Review Process

Once the articles are received in the Journal 16 de Abril, the editorial committee will have a maximum of 30 days to accept or reject the article.

Once accepted, the editorial process will continue, which may be suspended in the event of no response by the author / co-authors to the comments of the arbitration or communications from the editors, for which they have a maximum of 15 days. The extension of the term may be cause for rejection mainly, due to the loss of validity of the selected topic, its relevance or the timeliness of its citations.

The accepted manuscripts do not necessarily have to be unpublished, Documents that have been previously deposited in recognized specialty preprint servers such as SciELO Preprints, PMC, Plos and MedRxiv are accepted. Accepted papers remain the property of the journal and, therefore, cannot be submitted to another journal for consideration for publication, except with the proper authorization of the journal's Editorial Committee. However, as the journal 16 de Abril adheres to the policy of open access to scientific publication, it allows its copying and distribution as long as it maintains the recognition of its authors, does not make commercial use of the works and does not make any modification to them. . The Editorial Committee reserves the right to introduce style modifications and / or limit the texts that require it, committing to respect the original content.

Reevaluable : the article has errors or does not meet the criteria and required characteristics, but these do not affect the quality and veracity of the publication. Corrections are sent to the author, who forwards the article to the journal, initiating a second round of evaluation.

Not publishable : the article does not comply with the methodological and content standards, which threatens the quality or veracity of the article.

Finally, the manuscript goes to the proofreader, who reviews and corrects all spelling and grammatical errors.

The journal editors will keep the authors informed of the works received and their subsequent acceptance or not to continue in the process, and they will be able to know when they are in it. The manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously by two experts in the object of study and / or methodology used. The editorial staff of the journal reserves the right to reject articles that it does not consider appropriate for publication.

OFFICIAL EVALUATION FORMS FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ARTICLES

 

Original Research Results Article.

Evaluation parameters

1 . Relevance.

  • It contributes to solving any current important local, national or international problem.
  • It opens up new perspectives to solve unsolved aspects.
  • It constitutes a contribution or an innovation.

Indicate any other reason why you understand that the results presented in the article are relevant.

2. TITLE

  • Corresponds to the subject of the article
  • Concise, The writing is done in the third person and in the past tense.
  • In Spanish and English

4. KEYWORDS

  • In Spanish and English they must correspond to the Descriptors in Health Sciences and the MeSH respectively.

5 . INTRODUCTION

  • It should not exceed one page
  • Most recent background and knowledge
  • Rationale for the problem
  • Describe Clearly the objective of the work

6. MATERIAL AND METHODS

  • Define the type of research or study
  • Define the study population or group as well as the inclusion, exclusion and elimination criteria; in addition to the sample if it is used, explaining the calculation of the sample size and the recruitment technique used.
  • The variables analyzed are clearly described.
  • It clearly explains the methods data collection and processing and analysis that were used.
  • The statistical method is appropriate.
  • The work can be reproduced by other researchers.
  • Declares the particular ethical aspects for the study

7. RESULTS

  • Exposition in accordance with the objectives of the work.
  • They respond to the objectives of the study and are in correspondence with the results and the discussion.

10. Bibliographic References

  • Comply The recommendations of the Association of Medical Journal Editors (Vancouver Style).
  • It is up-to-date, most of it corresponds to recently published works. A minimum of 50% of the last five years.
  • Relevant national and international literature on the subject is represented.

11. TABLES

  • The information they present justifies their existence.
  • They do not repeat information already indicated in the text.
  • The title of the table corresponds appropriately to its content.

12. FIGURES

  • They have an adequate quality.
  • They are necessary and relevant.
  • The captions for figures correspond appropriately to these.

13 . OTHER ASPECTS .

  • Quality of the presentation in terms of writing and spelling.
  • It complies with bioethical principles accepted in our society
 
  

Evaluation conclusions:

  Article title:

1. It can be published as is

 

2. May be published with minor fixes

 
3. It must be rewritten and subjected to a new evaluation 

4. Not acceptable for publication

 
  Basis for opinion:

First and last name of the evaluator:

Date:

Review Articles.

Evaluation parameters

1- TITLE

● Corresponds to the subject of the article.

● Concise and understandable.

In Spanish and English

2- SUMMARY

  • Structured by sections.
  • Includes introduction, objective, material and method, development and conclusions more important.
  • Gives a good idea of what the job is about. It has a maximum limit of 250 words.
  • In Spanish and English

 

4. KEYWORDS

  • In Spanish and English they must correspond to the Descriptors in Health Sciences and MeSH respectively.

 INTRODUCTION

  • Presents brief, clear and appropriate antecedents
  • Importance and relevance of the topic
  • Foundation of the scientific problem originating the review.
  • Clearly describe the purpose of the work

6. Material and method

  • Criteria and justification for the selection of the consulted sources. Search strategy and databases used.

7. DEVELOPMENT

  • Exhibition in accordance with the objectives of the work.
  • Figures and tables highlight the relevant aspects without incurring repetition of information.
    • There is an interpretation of the results indicated in the consulted literature.
  • Contrasts the differences and coincidences of the studies analyzed.
  • Criticism of the results of the study is carried out in the light of the published works by the authors themselves or by other researchers.
  • Describes the possible applicability and generalizability of the results
  • Includes new aspects to consider
  • Indicates or highlights the limitations or Review input.

8. CONCLUSIONS

  • They respond to the objectives of the study
  • It presents clear, concrete and pertinent conclusions

9. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 

  • Observe the recommendations of the Association of Medical Journal Editors (Vancouver Style). ___
  • It is updated, the majority corresponds to recently published works.
  • The relevant national and international literature on the subject is represented. ___

10. TABLES AND FIGURES

  • The information they present justifies their existence.
  • The The title of the table corresponds appropriately to its content.
  • They have an adequate quality.
  • The figure captions correspond appropriately to these.
  • They do not repeat information in tables and figures
 

3. It must be rewritten and subjected to a new evaluation

 

4. Not acceptable for publication

 
Basis of opinion:

First and last name of the evaluator:

Date:

 

Evaluation conclusions:

Article title:

1. It can be published as is

 

2. May be published with minor fixes

 

3. It must be rewritten and subjected to a new evaluation

 

4. Not acceptable for publication

 

Basis for opinion:

First and last name of the evaluator:

Date:

 

Historical Articles

Evaluation Parameters

METHODOLOGY

. See primary or secondary sources

. Perform triangulation of sources.

DEVELOPMENT

Correct organization and presentation of the topic

Criteria and justification for the selection of articles consulted

It is divided into sections that facilitate the development and understanding of the topic

It is supported by primary and / or secondary sources

Includes a critical analysis of the sources consulted

 

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The conclusions respond to the objective of the work

Exposes clear, concrete and pertinent conclusions

 

Not acceptable for publication

1. It can be published as is

 

2. May be published with minor fixes

 

3. It must be rewritten and subjected to a new evaluation

 
 

Basis of opinion:

First and last name of the evaluator:

Date:

Open Access Policy

This journal provides open access to its content, based on the principle that offering the public free access to research helps a greater global exchange of knowledge.

THIS Journal DOES NOT APPLY CHARGES FOR PROCESSING OR PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES