r

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR ARTICLES SUBMITTED TO MEDEST

Article Types and Their Characteristics

**May exceed 6, depending on the scope of the research; acceptance is at the discretion of the Editorial Committee. It is necessary to declare each author's contribution according to the CRediT taxonomy.*

***May exceed 40, depending on the breadth of the topic and the number of studies included; acceptance is at the discretion of the Editorial Committee.*

SECTION POLICIES

EDITORIAL

• Scientific Editorials: Provide a rigorous update or an interesting clarification on a specific topic.

• Opinion Editorials: Present viewpoints or socio-scientific positions of the scientific community on a topic of common interest to health researchers and professionals.

These are solicited by the Editorial Committee. This is an invitation-only section.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

This constitutes the highest priority work for scientific publication in MedEst Journal.

Its length is 5000 words, excluding references and abstracts. It will follow this order: (1) title page, (2) abstract and keywords (in both the article's original language and English), (3) introduction, ending with the objective, (4) methods, (5) results, (6) discussion, (7) conclusions, and (8) references.

Follow the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement for observational studies. Systematic review articles or those containing meta-analyses should be developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. For health economic evaluations, use the CHEERS guide, and for clinical trials, the CONSORT guidelines.

• Introduction: Should be brief and provide only the necessary explanation for the reader to understand the research development and the article text. It provides the context and background of the problem addressed and the scientific problem that originated the research. It must also contain sufficient elements to justify conducting the study, expressing its importance, benefits, and value. It should not contain tables or figures. It must include a final paragraph clearly stating the study's objective.

• Methods: Will express the context where the research was conducted, the study period, the classification adopted, a detailed description of the universe, the selection and type of sampling, the description of criteria and justification for sample selection, as well as inclusion, exclusion, and elimination criteria, if required. Likewise, it must mention the variables studied, the study design, the data collection method, and the techniques used, both experimental —if applicable— and statistical. It must also include the ethical aspects of the study. When reporting on experiments involving humans, laboratory animals, or others, indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee (institutional or regional) overseeing human experimentation or with the Declaration of Helsinki. State the approval from an Ethics Committee and Scientific Council. In general, sufficient details should be provided so that the research is replicable based on this information.

• Results: This is the fundamental section of the article. It should be written in the past tense, using the impersonal form. It describes, without interpretations, the observations made with the employed method. These data will be presented in the text, complemented by tables and figures. It is not necessary to repeat all data in the text, only the elements of interest that will later be discussed, although reference must be made to the corresponding number of the tables being described. It is important that comments on the results are presented before placing tables, figures, or images, maintaining a logical sequence between the text and them. References are not cited in the Results section; if contrast is needed, it will be done in the Discussion.

• Discussion: Presents the novel and relevant aspects of the study and the conclusions derived from them. Authors must present their own opinions on the topic. Key points here: 1) the meaning and practical application of the results; 2) considerations about possible inconsistencies in the methodology (study limitations) and reasons why the results may be valid; 3) the relationship with similar publications and comparison between areas of agreement and disagreement; 4) indications and guidelines for future research. The discussion should avoid becoming a review of the topic or repeating concepts that appeared in the introduction. Research results should also not be repeated.

• Conclusions: The conclusion(s) must be related to the study objective(s). Furthermore, priorities should not be established, nor premature conclusions drawn from ongoing work. They must possess an adequate degree of generalization. They respond to the study objectives and correspond with the results and discussion; results are not repeated.

• References: It is important to use the most up-to-date bibliography on the subject; 75% or more of the references used should be from the last 5 years. The number of citations should be between 20 and 30. They must be cited with superscript numbers, within parentheses, and after the punctuation mark.

• Appendices: Appendices are accepted, especially when they contain essential complementary information that is not central to the main message (e.g., validated questionnaires, detailed statistical algorithms, genetic sequences, additional model data).

BRIEF COMMUNICATION

These allow for reporting preliminary or definitive results, technical advances in diagnosis or therapy, or clinical observations that justify accelerated publication. The maximum length is 2500 words, with up to four authors, a structured abstract of up to 250 words, up to 15 references with 75% recent, and up to four figures or tables. They follow the same structure as a full research article.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ARTICLE

These are systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Their length shall not exceed 8000 words, excluding references, and may have 6 or more authors; each author's contribution must be declared according to the CRediT taxonomy. This type of article offers a critical evaluation of published works, as it compiles, analyzes, and synthesizes the current state of a specific topic relevant to science. The purpose of the review, sources, and search methods for references must be indicated. We recommend using the PRISMA Guide for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as the Guide for developing a systematic review in the Health Sciences area from the Universitat de València. Other methodologies or guides may be used depending on the field or purpose, such as: Cochrane Handbook, JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute), Campbell Collaboration, Realist reviews, or Scoping reviews (e.g., using the PRISMA-ScR framework).

The article must include: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusions (may be included as a final part of the discussion), and references. The work may include tables and figures. Review articles should be prepared with the most up-to-date bibliography on the topic addressed and its accessibility in networks.

• Introduction: Must present brief and clear background with its bibliographical foundation, state the scientific problem that originated the review, and describe the objectives of the work.

• Methods: Include the criteria and justification for selecting the sources consulted, search engines used, databases, search strategies, as well as the criteria used for selecting the cited articles. It does not require results, but the discussion should be expanded as it is a secondary article.

• Results: Indicate the number of titles and abstracts reviewed, the number of full-text studies retrieved, and the number of studies excluded along with the reasons for exclusion. This information can be presented in a figure or flow diagram. References are not cited in the Results section.

• Discussion: This is the exposition aligned with the objectives of the work. Figures and tables highlighting relevant aspects may be included without repeating information. It will contain the systematization and interpretation of the results noted in the consulted literature: contrast differences and similarities with the analyzed studies, critique the study results in light of works published by other researchers, describe the possible applicability and generalizability of the results, include new aspects to consider (if necessary), and point out or highlight the limitations or contributions of the review.

• Conclusions: Respond to the study objectives. They must be clear, concise, and pertinent.

• References: Relevant literature on the topic must be represented, and citations must be properly formatted (with superscript numbers after the punctuation mark). The nature of the study requires an exhaustive search of all relevant literature. The number of citations used should not be less than 20, although it may exceed 40.

• Currency: The focus is not only on recent articles but on all available evidence since the inception of the field. Foundational studies are included without time limitation. The PRISMA protocol requires reporting the full range of dates searched. Every relevant article used in the discussion must be cited as a reference. If a larger number of references is required, it will be accepted, at the discretion of the editors.

• Appendices: May include appendices with complete lists of selected studies, database search strategies, detailed risk of bias assessments, or sensitivity analyses.

OPINION ARTICLE

This type of article provides an opportunity for authors to express and argue their opinions about a problem, fact, or circumstance of scientific interest in the field of medical sciences and public health. It may cover aspects of healthcare, educational, and research services, extending to topics of promotion, prevention, diagnosis, therapy, prognosis, and other clinical-epidemiological and administrative interests. It may also contain topics of pedagogy and didactics in the field of medical science education, as well as aspects of research development in its different ontological, epistemological, and methodological approaches, and the development and introduction of technologies and products.

These are short works, which must be written following the logical order of introduction, development, and conclusions —without separating these sections— and references (this section must use the most up-to-date bibliography on the subject; 75% or more of the references used should be from the last 5 years). The number of citations should not exceed 20.

• Introduction: Must contain the contextualization of the problem, fact, or characteristic that generates the author's(s') opinion, the importance of the aspects being opined on, as well as the justification for writing the article, closing this section with the objective of the work.

• Development: Will be written concisely but appropriately, presenting the main theoretical and empirical argumentation on the aspects and issues that generate the author's(s') opinion, consistent with the ideas presented and argued by them.

• Conclusions: Finally, in the conclusions, the essential aspects that fulfill the objective are generalized. The author(s) must demonstrate analytical and synthetic skills and induce reflection and debate.

CASE REPORT

These articles are characterized by discussing one or more cases of interest. This interest is defined by:

• Clinical syndrome or hereditary or congenital alteration, not previously described.

• Known case but with low frequency, leading to diagnostic challenges.

• Identification of rare clinical manifestations.

• Use of new and more precise diagnostic procedures than those previously reported.

• Use of useful therapeutic procedures not previously described.

• Use of new medications according to published literature.

The above must be adequately argued in the text of the report.

In its basic content, the Methods section is omitted, and the results are included in the presentation of the clinical case(s).

They will have the following structure: introduction (includes the objective); case presentation (will be reflected in chronological order, from the patient's first visit to the outcome), discussion, and references (between 10 and 15).

For publishing personal data or photographs of patients in a clinical case, see the section Patient Data or Photographs in MedEst Journal; obtaining written Informed Consent is essential.

These are short works, with no more than 3000 words, excluding references. They must have a structured abstract, with a maximum of 250 words. Only three authors are allowed.

All articles submitted to this section must comply with the provisions of the CARE guidelines.

We request that you pay special attention to the guidelines regarding the use of Patient Data or Photographs in MedEst Journal.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

This section provides readers with a space to make brief comments, in agreement or disagreement, on aspects contained in works published in MedEst Journal in the last two years. They may be related to interpretations, concepts, methodologies, results, etc.

Letters to the Editor allow for the exchange of ideas and opinions between authors and readers of the journal; this activity is as interesting as the article that triggered the correspondence exchange.

Guidelines for writing the letter:

• Title: Must be informative and directly related to the content of the letter. Although certain stylistic concessions not usual in research articles are allowed —such as the use of interrogative or exclamatory forms, or wordplay— these must maintain thematic relevance, avoid interpretive ambiguity, and preserve the academic tone of the text.

• Opening: The letter must begin with an explicit and precise reference to the event that motivates it, whether it is a recently published article in MedEst Journal or another event directly linked to its content (for example, an institutional declaration, a relevant report, or a recent scientific controversy related to a published article). From this reference, the development must follow a clear, logical, and progressive expository scheme.

• Development: Subsequent paragraphs must contain a well-founded argument —for or against— on the subject in question, or critical, complementary, or reflective comments. If original data are included, they must be presented summarily, accompanied by a very brief but explicit description of the methodological design (e.g., observational study, type of sampling, collection context, or type of analysis), sufficient to guarantee transparency, reproducibility, and ethical rigor of the approach, although in a more condensed manner than in a research article.

• Discussion: Next, a discussion must be developed that critically interprets the reasoning or data provided, relating them to existing evidence or the implications of the work that originated the letter.

• Closing: The text must close with a concluding paragraph that directly responds to the purpose stated at the beginning, without introducing new information and maintaining conciseness and coherence.

• Length and Format: The maximum allowed length is 1500 words, including the body text, references, and any footnotes. Up to 10 references are accepted, numbered consecutively in order of appearance and cited according to Vancouver style.

• Unacceptable Content: Letters whose content corresponds to the following will not be accepted: annals, institutional announcements, event calendars, calls for papers, lists of books received, journalistic news, reprints, meeting reports, undeveloped abstracts, obituaries, extended abstracts, thesis abstracts, reviews of commercial products, or translations of already published articles.

EDITOR'S LETTER

The Editor responds to letters addressed to them by authors referring to topics covered in articles published in MedEst Journal, or addresses relevant and current topics that have not yet been published, to invite the scientific community to research. Scientifically substantiated topics for debate are also proposed, to be inserted into the journal's communication system.