• The manuscript is being sent by the corresponding author on behalf of all authors;
• It presents the original work of the authors;
• Identical or similar work has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere;
• All the authors made a significant contribution to the study; and
• All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
• Briefly summarizes why your paper is a worthy contribution to the scientific literature;
• If the document is presented at a meeting or conference, specify the complete name of the meeting, the city where it was held, and the exact date on which the paper was presented.
• Relates your submission to previously published work;
• Specifies the type of article you are submitting (see Article Types & Format);
• The name of the corresponding author with contact address, contact phone number, email, and fax number (if available) must be listed.
• The covering letter should be signed by the corresponding author on behalf of all authors.

All persons designated as authors should qualify for writing, and all those who are eligible should be listed. Those who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments. When a large group or center has conducted the work, the author list should include the individuals whose contributions meet the criteria defined above, as well as the group name.
All author names should be listed in the following order:

• First names (or initials, if used),
• Middle names (or initials, if used), and
• Last names (surname, family name)

• Because abstracts are the only substantive portion of the article indexed in many electronic databases, and the single piece many readers read, authors need to be careful that summaries reflect the content of the article accurately. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations.
• Please do not include citations in your abstract and avoid the use of abbreviations, if possible and must be self-contained.
• It is an excellent idea to include keywords in your abstract, as this will help readers to find it. Key phrases need to make sense within the abstract. Try to keep to a maximum of three or four different keyword phrases, and avoid over-repetition of such phrases as this can look like an attempt to trick a search engine, which may result in a page being rejected.
• Check that the abstract reads well.
• For papers reporting original research, state the primary objective and any hypothesis tested; describe the research design and your reasons for adopting that methodology; state the methods and procedures employed, indicate the primary outcomes and results, and state the conclusions that might be drawn from these data and results, including their implications for further research or application/practice.
• For review papers, indicate the primary objective of the review; the reasoning behind your literature selection; and the way you critically analyze the literature; state the primary outcomes and results of your study; and state the conclusions that might be drawn, including their implications for further research or application/practice.

• Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy, as well as a system on identifying who is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole.
• While contributorship and guarantor ship policies remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, it leaves unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of participation that qualify for authorship.
• Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published; and 4) agreement to act as guarantor of the work (ensuring that questions related to any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved). Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
• When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above, and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict of interest disclosure forms. When submitting a group author manuscript, the corresponding author should indicate the preferred citation and should identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals will generally list other members of the group in the acknowledgments. The National Library of Medicine indexes the group name and the names of individuals the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript.
• Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
• All persons designated as authors should qualify for writing, and all those who are eligible should be listed.
• Each author should have participated sufficiently in work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
• Increasingly, authorship of multi-center trials is attributed to a group. All members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the above criteria for authorship.
• The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed.

• All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
• Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under a heading such as «clinical investigators» or «participating investigators,» and their function or contribution should be described — for example, «served as scientific advisors,» «critically reviewed the study proposal,» «collected data,» or «provided and cared for study patients.»
• Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, all persons must give written permission to be acknowledged. 

• References are listed in numerical order, and in the same order in which they are cited in the text. The reference list appears at the end of the paper.
• Use superscript Arabic numerals to cite material, e.g., ¹ The first reference used in a written document is listed as 1 in the reference list.
• Begin your reference list on a new page and title it ‘References.’
• The reference list should include all and only those references you have cited in the text. (However, do not include unpublished items such as correspondence).
• Use Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
• Abbreviate journal titles in style used in the NLM Catalog
• Check the reference details against the actual source – you are indicating that you have read a source when you cite it.
• Be consistent with your referencing style across the document.
• For secure handling of the bibliographical references we advise the use of Mendeley and install our style Bionatura

• Figure 1.
• Table 1.
• Text 1.
• Video 1.
• Animation 1.
• Alternative Language Abstract 1.

• Provide background that puts the manuscript into context and allows readers outside the field to understand the purpose and significance of the study
• Define the problem addressed and why it is important
• Include a brief review of the critical literature
• Reports of clinical research should, where appropriate, include a summary of a search of the literature to indicate why this study was necessary and what it aimed to contribute to the field
• Note any relevant controversies or disagreements in the field
• The section should end with a very brief statement of what is being reported in the article.
• The main and secondary objectives should be made clear, and any pre-specified subgroup analysis should be described.
• Give only strictly pertinent references and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.
• Extensive discussion of relevant literature should be included in the discussion.

• Written by the Bionatura Text Editors, Associate Editors, or Invited Guest Editors on a variety of subjects of interest to the Journal readers
• Typically shorter than one page

• Submitted by the Reader
• Supports refutes or adds relevant information related to a previously published article
• Authors correcting their work or responding to a critique of their article by a reader(s)
• An abstract is not required.
• The letter should not be divided into sections.
• The letter will undergo peer-review similar to other articles.

• Authors suggestion (scope is open to areas beyond science/technology)
• Reviewers recommendation
• Represents the “perspective” or “opinion” or “hypothesis” of the author(s)
• Amount of original data is minimal, but corroborative literature data encouraged
• Format: Does not follow the outline of Introduction, Materials/Methods, Discussion/Conclusions, and References

• Authors suggestion
• Topic is relatively broad in scope
• Review article should be on a topic which is of interest to a wide readership.
• Review articles should have comprehensive coverage of a topic in clear and lucid language with representative figures and images.
• Represents an overview of published information and data from many authors and sources
• Does not contain original data (to any great extent)
• Abstract and keywords are a must
• Usually includes a large number of references

• Follows the outline of Introduction, Materials/Methods, Discussion/Conclusions, and References
• Supported by the significant and relevant amount of data
• Data should have been developed by the author(s)
• Conclusions are based primarily on the data presented and compared to the published literature

• Describes a particular technology or application
• Surgical techniques, new instruments, technical innovations
• Contains original data generated in the process of developing the technology or in support of the application
• Supported by a significant amount of data
• May follow the outline of Introduction, Materials/Methods, Discussion/Conclusions, and References
• Does the article impress upon the readers a new process/ or technology?
• Case Studies- detailed description with data of the specific implementation of an application or the solution to a given practical problem

• The Case Series section of Open Access Text reports a series of 2-6 similar cases.
  
• The cases should be unusual and give a unique perspective on disease presentation, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and treatment side effects.
• The cases should address a challenging diagnostic and/or therapeutic problem with possible solutions to help and treatment side effects.
• The case should address a challenging diagnostic and/or therapeutic problem with possible solutions to help clinicians in managing these cases much more effectively.
• Case series must be accompanied with a comprehensive review of the literature.
• Abstract is required.

• Case Reports must provide an original description of a previously unreported entity or report a new presentation of a known disease or a new perspective of the case which poses a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge.
• Case Reports should include a comprehensive review of similar cases and state the differences between the present case and previous cases.
• Case reports should be accompanied by clinical, radiological, and pathologic images.

• For ‘Case in Images’ section, the manuscript must meet all the criteria of a case report given above with the difference that 10-25 figures can be submitted for this section (Case Report can have a maximum of 7 figures).
• The figures may include clinical images, radiology images (USG, CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, etc.), pathology images (histopathology, cytopathology, hematopathology) or a series of images of a procedure or event.

• Clinical Images section includes clinical images, diagnostic or investigative images, especially images in radiology, endoscopy, pathology, and cytopathology.
• The images should be accompanied by a brief history and case discussion followed by a conclusion.
• Abstract is not required.
• The Clinical Images will undergo peer review similar to other articles.

1. Manuscripts should be submitted by one of the authors, who is listed in the manuscript while submitting the manuscript files through EMS, make sure your files are in Word format.
2. Alternatively, you can send it to our E-mail address:editor@revistabionatura.org
3. Submitted manuscripts should typically include the following elements:
4. Cover letter (required)
5. Manuscript (required)
6. Figures
7. Tables
8. Supplemental Material

1. All manuscripts submitted to Open Access Text Journals are received by the Editorial Assistant who examines all files including cover letter, text files, images, and figures. If the files meet the technical and formatting of Open Access Text, as given in the Instructions for Authors, authors are sent an acknowledgment of the manuscript along with a Manuscript ID number.
   
2. After assigning the Manuscript ID number, the manuscript is sent for editorial review and external peer review. Authors are requested to quote the manuscript ID number in all correspondences with Open Access Text journals. If the manuscript files do not meet the technical requirements of the journal, authors are sent detailed instructions about the changes required in the manuscript and asked to resubmit the files to the Editorial Office, using «Submit Revision» page.
   
3. After the files pass the technical and formatting requirements; the manuscript is assigned to a Section Editor or a member of the Editorial Board.
4. The Editor reviews the manuscript and returns the manuscripts along with the comments to the Editorial Assistant or Editorial Secretary. The editorial process gives the editors the authority to reject any manuscript, if it doesn’t meet the scientific publishing standards or is out of the scope of the journal.
5. Based on the comments of the Editor, the manuscript is sent for the external peer review. The manuscript is usually sent to two to four expert peer reviewers. The peer reviewer’s identities are kept confidential to ensure a fair and unbiased review of every manuscript.
6. The pertinent Editor-in-Chief will review submissions to identify those that are appropriate for a full review and assign an Associate Editor to manage the review process.
7. The Associate Editor will select reviewers, manage the review process, and will make one of the following publication recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief:
8. Accept without revision;
9. Invite author(s) to revise the submission to address specific but relatively minor concerns;
10. Invite author(s) to revise the submission to address moderate to major concerns;
11. Reject, but indicate to the author(s) that further work might justify a resubmission; or
12. Reject outright.
13. If a revision is recommended, the Editorial Assistant will include, with her or his review, a short paragraph summarizing the most important issues raised by the reviewers for the author(s) to address and ask the author(s) to include a Response to Reviewers with their revision. In some cases the Editorial Assistant may seek further review from the original or other reviewers.
14. The Editor-in-Chief will make the ultimate decision regarding publication, and communicate directly with the corresponding author on the results of the review process.
15. After acceptance, a Production Editor will perform a technical audit of the final manuscript and supporting files, to ensure that the submission will move through the production process smoothly.
16. After the acceptance of the manuscript, it may be edited for grammar, punctuation, style and accuracy. An edited, pre-print, proof of the manuscript with all figures, table and charts included, is sent to the corresponding author for approval. The proof will be sent as a PDF file. The authors will also be sent a proof corrections form, which the authors can use to submit any changes required in the manuscript. Please note that at this stage only the type-setting like incorrect punctuation will be corrected. It will not be possible to make any significant changes to the text or add or delete figures. The proof need to be returned to the Editorial Office within three days (72 hours).
17. After the correction proofs are received by the Editorial Office, the final version of the manuscript is prepared for publication. During preparation for publication, HTML, PDF, XML and other formats of the manuscript are prepared. After receiving page proofs, the average time to publication is approximately four weeks. All manuscripts are published in HTML and PDF formats.
18. To facilitate the preparation of the originals, the authors are directed to consult the uniform requirements indicated above available in: http://www.icmje.org/
19. References will be cited in a number flown in order of appearance in the text according to sistema Vancouver.