Login or Register to make a submission.

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.
  • 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).
  • The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
  • Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
  • 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.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Author Guidelines

Carefully read the submission guidelines as follows:

  1. General Requirements
  • The minimum standard requirements of The Health Practitioners must be Written in English.
  • The word length of the submitted paper should as per the requirement for the type of article as detailed.  Editors will evaluate if an article is needing more or less than the requirement in exceptional cases. 
  • Use of a tool such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote for reference management and formatting, and choose APA Style
  • Make sure that your paper is prepared using the “The Health Practitioners” paper template
  1. Structure of The Manuscript

The manuscript must be qualified and suggested present follow the structure:

  • Title. The title of the paper should describe research aims, method/model, and objective, without Acronym or abbreviation
  • Abstract. The Abstract has a maximum 250 WORDS; No citation; State in the abstract a primary goal, research design, methodology, main outcomes and results, and the conclusions.
  • Keywords. A minimum 3 keywords for paper required.
  • Section structure. Authors are suggested to present their articles in the section structure: Introduction - Method - Results and Discussion – Conclusion
  • References. As described in Author Guidelines .

Please see the details at Guidance for Authors by clicking here


Here "Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement" for our journal “The Heath Practitioners (THP)”.

Visitors are requested to visit our "THP General Editorial Policy" page for more information.


  1. All submitted manuscripts are subject to peer-review process. We have blind reviewer system however it is still a transparent process to help eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published with the papers. If reviewers do not want to reveal their identities, we will honour that request. In that case only the review reports will be published as ‘anonymous reviewer report’.


  1. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. THP believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. THP journal will peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound or interesting. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).


  1. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer's response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision.


  1. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.


  1. Rejected papers are given the opportunity for a formal appeal. Appeal requests should be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be addressed to with the word "appeal" in the subject line. If an author remains unsatisfied, he or she can write to the Editorial Office, citing the manuscript reference number. In all these cases, it is likely that some time will elapse before THP can respond, and the paper must not be submitted for publication elsewhere during this time. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments. Authors should also be aware that priority is given to new submissions to the journal and so the processing of the appeal may well take longer than the processing of the original submission. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered and the paper may not be resubmitted.


  1. Articles may be rejected without review if the Editor considers the article obviously not suitable for publication.


  1. The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.


  1. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.


  1. The editor confers with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.


  1. The reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


  1. The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.


  1. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. THP believes in constructive criticism. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors' discretion). It is expected that the reviewers should suggest the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. Comments of the reviewers should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach a Editorial Decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript, so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism.


  1. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions. Additionally we believe that one of the main objectives of peer review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’.


  1. Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.


  1. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention for any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.


  1. Authors of contributions and studies research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.


  1. Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided inside the manuscript so that another researcher is able to reproduce the experiments described. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.


  1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. THP strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. If you suspect any unethical practice in this manuscript, kindly write it in the report with some proof/web links. Studies which are carried out to reconfirm / replicate the results of any previously published paper with new data-set, may be considered for publication. But these types of studies should have a ‘clear declaration’ of this matter. Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable. We normally follow the guidelines given in COPE website. Editors, reviewers and authors are also requested to strictly follow this excellent guideline (Reference: Text Recycling Guidelines: Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency, if applied and subsequently the paper will be retracted.


  1. Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.


  1. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.


  1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Submission of a paper to this journal indicates that the author(s) have agreed the content of the paper. One author should be indicated as corresponding author for all publication related communications. All correspondence and proofs would be sent to the corresponding author, who will be treated as final representative voice for all authors regarding any decision related to manuscript, unless otherwise requested during submission. This journal would not be responsible for any dispute related to authorship of a submitted paper. Any change in the authorship (such as addition or deletion of author(s) or change in the sequence of author list) should be intimated to the editorial office through a letter signed by all authors before publication of the paper. In absence of any signed letter, approval of 'Galley proof' by corresponding author will work as 'certificate of final agreement of authorship'. Generally any change in the authorship after final publication, is not entertained and COPE guidelines are followed for any dispute.


  1. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.


  1. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.


  1. All THP journals are published in ONLINE only. Authors should note that no hard copy will be published in order to minimize the additional carbon footprint, resulting from printing on papers.


  1. The study has not been published (partly or as a whole) before or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere (except as an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis); We will consider manuscripts that have been deposited in preprint servers such as arXiv or published in institutional repositories. We will also consider work that has been presented at conferences (Significant amount of changes should be made before submission to the journal and proper citation of the conference paper is required).


  1. It is compulsory for the authors to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.


  1. THP is determined to promote integrity in research publication. We have great respect and we generally follow the guidelines, given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, etc. For these kinds of disputes, we generally visit and follow the COPE website and author(s) are also requested to do so. Excellent guidelines, related to COPE’s Code of Conduct and its advice to tackle cases of suspected misconduct, are available in this link (


  1. The copyrights of all papers published in this journal are retained by the respective authors as per the 'Creative Commons Attribution License' ( The author(s) should be the sole author(s) of the article and should have full authority to enter into agreement and in granting rights to THP, which are not in breach of any other obligation. The author(s) should ensure the integrity of the paper and related works. Authors should mandatorily ensure that submission of manuscript to THP would result into no breach of contract or of confidence or of commitment given to secrecy.


  1. The research must meet all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

Short Article

Short Research Articles (up to ~2000 words, including references, notes and captions–corresponds to ~2 printed pages in the journal) are expected for publication of a research in early stage.  Research Articles include an abstract, an introduction,  materials and methods, discussion, conclusion, up to two figures or tables  and about 10 references.

Original Article

Research Articles (up to ~4500 words, including references, notes and captions–corresponds to ~5 printed pages in the journal) are expected to present a major advance. Research Articles include an abstract, an introduction, up to six figures or tables, sections with brief subheadings, and about 40 references. Materials and Methods should be included in supplementary materials, which should also include information needed to support the paper's conclusions.

One Sentence Summary:
Main Text:
References and Notes


List of Supplementary materials:
Fig. #:
 (Begin each figure caption with a label, “Fig. 1.” for example, as a new paragraph) (or Scheme #)
Table #: (Begin each table caption with a label “Table 1.”, etc. as a new paragraph)
Supplementary Materials:

Titles should be no more than 96 characters (including spaces).

Short titles should be no more than 40 characters (including spaces).

One-sentence summaries capturing the most important point should be submitted for Research Articles, Reports and Reviews. These should be a maximum of 125 characters and should complement rather than repeat the title

Authors and their affiliated institutions, linked by superscript numbers, should be listed beneath the title on the opening page of the manuscript.

Abstracts of Research Articles and Reports should explain to the general reader why the research was done, what was found and why the results are important. They should start with some brief BACKGROUND information: a sentence giving a broad introduction to the field comprehensible to the general reader, and then a sentence of more detailed background specific to your study. This should be followed by an explanation of the OBJECTIVES/METHODS and then the RESULTS. The final sentence should outline the main CONCLUSIONS of the study, in terms that will be comprehensible to all our readers. The Abstract is distinct from the main body of the text, and thus should not be the only source of background information critical to understanding the manuscript. Please do not include citations or abbreviations in the Abstract. The abstract should be 125 words or less. For Perspectives and Policy Forums please include a one-sentence abstract.

Main Text is not divided into sub-headings for Reports. Subheadings are used only in Research Articles, and Reviews. Use descriptive clauses, not full sentences. Two levels of subheadings may be used if warranted; please distinguish them clearly. The manuscript should start with a brief introduction describing the paper’s significance. The introduction should provide sufficient background information to make the article intelligible to readers in other disciplines, and sufficient context that the significance of the experimental findings is clear. Technical terms should be defined. Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms should be defined the first time they are used. All tables and figures should be cited in numerical order. All data must be shown either in the main text or in the Supplementary Materials or must be available in an established database with accession details provided in the acknowledgements section. References to unpublished materials are not allowed to substantiate significant conclusions of the paper.

References and Notes are numbered in the order in which they are cited, first through the text, then through the figure and table legends and finally through Supplementary Materials. Place citation numbers for references and notes within parentheses, italicised: (18, 19) (18-20) (18, 20-22). There should be only one reference list covering citations in the paper and Supplementary Materials. We will include the full reference list online, but references found only in the Supplementary Materials will be suppressed in print. Each reference should have a unique number; do not combine references or embed references in notes. Any references to in-press manuscripts at the time of submission should be given a number in the text and placed, in correct sequence, in the references and notes. We do not allow citation to personal communications, and unpublished or “in press” references are not allowed at the time of publication. We do allow citations to papers posted at arXiv or bioRxiv. Do not use op. cit., ibid., or et al. (in place of the complete list of authors' names). Notes should be used for information aimed at the specialist (e.g., procedures) or to provide definitions or further information to the general reader that are not essential to the data or arguments. Notes can cite other references (by number). Journal article references should be complete, including the full list of authors, the full titles, and the inclusive pagination. Titles are displayed in the online HTML version, but not in the print or the PDF versions of papers. See Science Citation Style below for details of citation style.

Acknowledgments should be gathered into a paragraph after the final numbered reference. This section should start by acknowledging non-author contributions, and then should provide information under the following headings Funding: include complete funding information; Authors contributions: a complete list of contributions to the paper (we encourage you to follow the CRediT model), Competing interests: competing interests of any of the authors must be listed (all authors must also fill out the Conflict of Interest form). Where authors have no competing interests, this should also be declared. Data and materials availability: Any restrictions on materials such as MTAs. Accession numbers to any data relating to the paper and deposited in a public database. If all data is in the paper and supplementary materials include the sentence “all data is available in the manuscript or the supplementary materials.” (All data, code, and materials used in the analysis must be available to any researcher for purposes of reproducing or extending the analysis.)

List of Supplementary Materials After the Acknowledgments list your supplementary items as shown below.

Supplementary Materials
Materials and Methods
Table S1 – S2
Fig S1 – S4
References (26 – 32)
Movie S1

Tables should be included after the references and should supplement, not duplicate, the text. They should be called out within the text and numbered in the order of their citation in the text. The first sentence of the table legend should be a brief descriptive title. Every vertical column should have a heading, consisting of a title with the unit of measure in parentheses. Units should not change within a column. Footnotes should contain information relevant to specific entries or parts of the table.

Figure legends should be double-spaced in numerical order. A short figure title should be given as the first line of the legend. No single legend should be longer than 200 words. Nomenclature, abbreviations, symbols, and units used in a figure should match those used in the text. Any individually labeled figure parts or panels (A, B, etc.) should be specifically described by part name within the legend.

Figures should be called out within the text. Figures should be numbered in the order of their citation in the text. For initial submission, Figures should be embedded directly in the .docx or PDF manuscript file. 

Review Article

Reviews Review articles for our joournal  "The Health Practitioners" are individually requested from prominent practitioners or academics who have vast experience and are prepared to chare the knowledge and experience with our readers.

Some times the reviews are compiled in form of Special Issue and include additional length, references, and enhanced media etc.  The full text will be included in all digital versions of the journal , and an enhanced abstract consisting of 550-600 words divided into 3 sections headed Background, Advances, and Outlook will be included. Reviews can be up to 6000 words and include up to 100 references, and 4-6 figures or tables. Reviews do not contain supplementary material. They should describe and synthesize the overview, recent developments of interdisciplinary significance and highlight future directions. They include an abstract, an introduction that outlines the main themes, brief subheadings, and an outline of important unresolved questions.

Unsolicited offers of Reviews are considered.


Reports (up to ~2500 words including references, notes and captions–corresponds to ~3 printed pages in the journal) present important new research results of broad significance. Reports should include an abstract, an introductory paragraph, up to four figures or tables, and about 30 references. Materials and Methods should be included in supplementary materials, which should also include information needed to support the paper's conclusions.

Letter to Editor

  • Letters (up to 300 words) are accepted to discuss material published in "The Health Practitioners" in the last 3 months or issues of general interest. Letters should be submitted through our Manuscript Submission and Information Portal. For specific question, the author of a paper is usually given an opportunity to reply.  The letter writers are not always consulted before publication and the letters are subject to editing for clarity and interpretation. 

Book or Media Review

  • Books or Media Reviews (up to 800 words) feature commentary on new books, films, exhibitions, performances, mobile applications, podcasts, and other media that are likely to be of broad interest to our readership. Please contact the Editor before you begin preparing your book or media review, indicating why you believe the work would be of interest to our readers, and why you are well-positioned to write the review.

Policy Forum Report

  • Policy Forum Report (up to 1500 words, 1-2 figures, and up to 15 references) present issues related to the intersections between science and society that have health impact. 

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.