Categories of articles
Manuscripts are accepted in the following languages: Portuguese, Spanish and English.
The manuscript of an original research should follow the structure known as IMRD: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (Text Structure). Manuscripts based on qualitative research may have other formats, assimilating Results and Discussion in a single section and Final Remarks/Conclusions. Other categories of manuscripts (reviews, commentaries etc.) follow appropriate specific text formats.
Studies should be presented so that any interested researcher may be able to reproduce the results. Therefore, we encourage the use of the following recommendations, according to the category of the submitted manuscript:
·CONSORT checklist and fluxogram for controlled and randomized essays
Details of the items required for submission of the manuscript are described according to the article category.
a) Original Articles
Include observational studies, experimental or quasi-experimental studies, programs evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis, decision analysis and studies on evaluation of diagnostic tests performance for population screening. Each article should contain clear objectives and hypotheses, design and methods used, results, discussion and conclusions.
Also include theoretical essays (critical and formulation of relevant theoretical knowledge) and articles dedicated to the presentation and discussion of methodological aspects and techniques used in public health research. In this case, the text should be divided into topics to guide the reader, regarding the essential elements of the argument being developed.
Measuring instruments in population surveys
To the manuscripts exploring measuring instruments, we recommend the presentation of a detailed assessment of the construct being evaluated, including possible intensity gradient and sub-dimensions. The development of a new instrument should be supported by the existing literature, explicitly identifying the failure of previous proposals and justifying the need for a new instrument.
The proposal, selection and preparation of the items should be detailed, as well as the employment of strategies to adapt them to the construct, including the use of qualitative research techniques (in-depth interviews, focus groups etc.), meetings with expert panels, among others. The route taken in defining the way items are measured and pre-tests conducted with its preliminary settings, should be described in the text. The evaluation of face, content, criterion, construct and/or dimensional validity should be presented in detail.
Instrument reliability analysis should also be presented and discussed, including internal consistency measures, test-retest reliability and/or inter-observer agreement. Authors should explain the selection process of the final instrument and place it in a critical and comparative perspective with other instruments used to measure the same construct or similar constructs.
Manuscripts on cross-cultural adaptation of measuring instruments, should meet, in general, all the recommendations mentioned above, and should also clarify the guiding theoretical model used in the process. Authors should also justify the choice of an instrument for adaptation to a specific sociocultural context, based on thorough literature review. Finally, authors should explicitly state which steps of the theoretical model were used, and how they were employed, for the adaptation of the work submitted for publication.
During the preparation of the manuscript, in addition to the recommendations mentioned above, please check the following formatting instructions.
b) Brief communications –short reports of findings that are of interest to public health, but do not support a more comprehensive analysis and a more lengthy discussion.
c) Review articles
Systematic review and meta-analysis – By summarizing results of original studies, quantitative or qualitative, it seeks to answer the specific question of relevance to public health. It describes in detail the search process of the original studies, the criteria used to select those that were included in the review and the procedures used in the synthesis of the results obtained through the studies reviewed. Check:
Narrative/critical review – The narrative or critical review has a descriptive-discursive character, dedicated to the comprehensive presentation and discussion of scientific issues in the field of Public Health. Should clearly formulate a scientific object of interest, logical reasoning, theoretical and methodological review of the studies consulted and a concluding summary. It should be elaborated by researchers with experience in the field concerned or by experts of recognized competence.
Aim to stimulate discussion, introduce the debate and “fuel” controversies about relevant aspects of public health. The text should be divided into topics or subtopics and the Introduction should include the subject and its importance. Cited references should support the main issues addressed in the article.
The concept of authorship is based on the substantial contribution of each of the people listed as authors, especially regarding the design of the research project, analysis and interpretation of data, writing and critical review. The contribution of each author should be made clear in a statement for this specific purpose. The inclusion of authors whose contribution does not meet the above criteria are not justified.
Author’s identification data (registration)
Name and surname: The author should follow the format in which he/she has already been indexed in the databases.
Correspondence: It must contain the name and address of the author responsible for correspondence.
Institution: Up to three institutional affiliation hierarchies may be included (e.g. department, college, university).
Coauthors: Identify the coauthors of the manuscript by name, surname and institution, following the order of authorship.
Research funding: If the research was subsidized, the type of aid, the name of the funding agency and the process number should be indicated.
Prior Presentation: If the research has already been presented at a scientific meeting, indicate the event name, place and year of completion.
When based on a thesis or dissertation, indicate the author's name, title, year, name of the graduate program and the institution where it was presented.
The public confidence in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend, in part, on how conflicts of interest are managed during the writing, peer review and decision-making by the editors.
When authors submit a manuscript, they are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial conflicts or others, which may have influenced their work. Authors must acknowledge all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections linked to the research. The reporter should disclose to the editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and, when appropriate, should declare himself/herself unqualified to review it.
If the authors are not certain what may constitute a potential conflict of interest, they should contact the editorial office.
In accordance with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, some documents and statements are requested from the author(s) for the evaluation of the manuscript. Observe the list of documents below and, when applicable, attach the document to the process. The moment when these documents will be requested varies:
The letter should be signed by all the authors and should contain:
b. RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT
Title in the original language of the manuscript and in its English version
Figures and Tables
Methods – The procedures adopted should be clearly described; as well as the variables analyzed, with its respective definitions when necessary and the hypothesis to be tested. Descriptions should include population and the sample, measuring instruments, with the presentation, if possible, of the validity measures; and contain information on the collection and processing of the data. Due reference to the methods and techniques employed, including statistical methods should be included; new or substantially modified methods should be described, explaining the reasons for their use and citing their limitations. The research ethical criteria must be met. The authors should state that the research was conducted within the ethical standards and approved by the ethics committee.
Results – Should be presented in a logical sequence, starting with the description of the most important data. Tables and figures should be restricted to those necessary for argument and description of the data in the text should be restricted to the most important. Graphs should be used to highlight the most relevant results and summarize complex relationships. Data in graphs and tables should not be duplicated or repeated in the text. Numerical results should specify the statistical methods used in the analysis. Extra or additional material and technical details may be disclosed in the electronic version of the article.
Discussion - From the data obtained and the results achieved, new and important aspects observed should be interpreted in the light of the scientific literature and existing theories in the field. Arguments and evidence based on personal communication or disclosed in restricted documents cannot serve to support the author's arguments. Both the limitations of the work and its implications for future research should be clarified. Include only assumptions and generalizations based on work data. The results should bring up the rear of this part, reiterating the article’s objective.
Foley KM, Gelband H, editors. Improving palliative care for cancer Washington: National Academy Press; 2001[cited 2003 jul 13] Disponível em: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10149
For other examples, we recommend consulting the guidelines (“Citing Medicine”) of the National Library of Medicine, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmed.
Checklist for submission
|a) Review of the scientific writing
To be published, the approved manuscript is submitted for review of scientific writing, grammar and style. RSP reserves the right to make amendments, seeking perfect communication with the readers. The corresponding author will have access to all the modifications suggested until the very last proof submitted. Even the English version of the article will be available for review.
After its approval by the editors, the manuscript will be checked by a team, responsible for reviewing: scientific writing (clarity, brevity, objectivity and soundness), grammar and style.
The corresponding author will receive a proof, in text file (doc, docx or rtf) with the comments/changes made by the technical reading staff. The deadline for reviewing this proof is two days.
If there are still doubts in this proof, the editorial team will contact the author for a review, until a final version of the text can be reached. Then, the final text will undergo a grammar review. After this review, the author will receive a new proof, in the final form for publication. In this last review, only error corrections can be made, format adjustments will not be accepted. The deadline for the final review is of one day.
Articles submitted in Portuguese or Spanish will be translated into English. About a week after the author has finished proofreading the article, RSP will send the English version of the article for the author’s consideration. During this review, the author should pay attention to possible misinterpretations, vocabulary area and mainly content equivalence with the “approved original” version. The deadline for reviewing the English version is two days.The Journal adopts a continued publishing system (rolling pass). Thus, the publication of the article becomes faster: it is not dependent on other articles to compose an issue, but the individual process of each article. Therefore, we request compliance with the deadlines.
Although journals receive subsidies from public institutions, these are not sufficient for their maintenance. Thus, charging a publication fee has become an alternative to ensure the necessary resources for the production of RSP.
University of São Paulo ensures basic resources, but they are not sufficient. So, we have to rely on additional resources, besides funding agencies.
RSP completed 50 years in 2016, and only in 2012 it has started charging publication fees, an imperative fact to ensure its continuity, especially allowing to evolve with more advanced technologies that also require higher quality and technological resources.
The amount charged is evaluated regularly. Therefore, for articles submitted from January 2017 onwards, the fee values will be BRL 2,200.00 (or the equivalent in US dollars) for original articles, reviews and comments, and BRL 1,500.00 (or the equivalent in US dollars) for brief communication.The RSP will provide authors the required proof of payment for requesting reimbursement from their home institutions, graduate programs or support of research agencies.
a) PRESENTATION LETTER
City, Month Day, Year.
Dear Mr. Editor, Revista de Saúde Pública
We submit to your appreciation the work “____________[title]_____________”, which is within the purview of the areas of interest of RSP. The journal was chosen due to the [insert the justifications of the journal’s choice for the publication of the manuscript].
Author 1 participated on the conception, planning, analysis, interpretation and writing of the work; and, author 2 participated on the interpretation and writing of the work. Both authors approve the final submitted version.
The work is being submitted exclusively to RSP. The authors disclose no conflict of interest regarding this work. (If there is conflict, specify).
b) RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT
I, (complete name), certify that I have participated as an author in the manuscript entitled (title) according to the following terms:
“I guarantee that I have sufficiently participated of the work, thus making public my responsibility with its content.”
“I guarantee that the manuscript represents an original work and that neither this manuscript, partly or fully, or any other work with substantially similar content, of my authorship, was published or is being considered for publication in another journal, be it in the printed or the electronic format, except for the described in the attachment.”
“I attest that, if requested, I will provide or fully cooperate in obtaining and providing data on which the manuscript is based, for the editors’ examination.”
c) STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I, (complete name of the author responsible for the submission), author of the manuscript entitled (complete title of the article):
d) COPYRIGHT TRANSFER STATEMENT
I agree that the copyright related to the unpublished study [TITLE], approved for publication in the Revista de Saúde Pública, will be the exclusive property of the Faculdade de Saúde Pública, and it can be reproduced, in whole or in part, by any other means of disclosure, either printed or electronic, provided that the source is cited, giving due credit to the Revista de Saúde Pública.