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

Journal Guidelines/Instructions to Author

ABSTRACT: for original articles the second page should contain a structured abstract of afore mentioned length. To avoid various instructional confusions, the abstract should be divided into the following components i.e.

  1. Objective (why was the study started)
  2. Design (how was it conducted)
  • Place and Duration of study
  1. Methodology (what was done) which should include patients/subjects, interventions and major outcome measures
  2. Results (what was found) and
  3. Conclusion(s) (what did it mean)

Statistical methods used should also be given briefly in the abstract, however the details are not required in the abstract.

How long does the review process take?

Once appropriate reviewers have been identified they are sent an invitation, and asked to respond within two weeks (at which point it will be sent to an alternate). Reviewers who accept the invitation are asked to complete the review within 15-20 days. Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript but do not return comments by the due date may be replaced with alternates to keep the review process moving along. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought.

Ethical Approval of the Research

All research projects involving human subjects, whether; as individuals or communities, or the use of fetal material, embryos from the recently . dead, shall be reviewed and approved by an. Ethical Review Committee of the institution before the study begins.


The Review articles can be classified as necessary, but the Original articles must include the following sections:

Introduction: should describe brief review of the topic and the purpose of the study.

Methodology: this can be sub classified into various sections, as and when applicable.

Statistical methods used should be given here in sufficient detail and any new procedures carried out, should be described well.

Results: the logical conclusions of the study must be mentioned and be emphasized upon and summarized by tables and or figures, which are referred to in the text.

Discussion: the views of the author(s) and the comments ought to be given here, supported by reference to other studies.

Conclusion(s): these take into consideration the problems which necessitated the study, inference drawn from the study and suggestions for further betterment or need for wider studies.

TABLES: they should not exceed 2-3 generally, but occasionally they may be 4.

Each table must be referred to in the text by its number, sequentially and be detailed on a separate sheet, numbered and arranged in the order in which it appears in the text. Every table should have its title, placed as a “Caption” above it after the number in Roman numericals. There should be no vertical rules in the tables.

FIGURES & ILLUSTRATION: these should not exceed 2, generally.

They should be referred to in the text sequentially, by their number and each is to be placed on a separate sheet. A brief description of it is given as a “Legend” under it, preceded by its number in Arabic numericals.

Detailed duplication of results given in tables and figures must not occur in the text of the manuscript.

Units of measurement: for reporting in the text they should be Conventional with System International (SI) units given in parenthesis.  The names of drugs should be written in generic terminology.

Study limitations must be given.


To safe guard the rights and welfare of human subjects participating in biomedical research, ethical approval must be obtained for all manuscripts, based on general global codes of medical ethics, along with the consent of the Institutional Ethical Committee(s) of the concerned organization(s). All the ethical approval(s), in case of multicenter studies should accompany the manuscript in writing. The approval(s) must be accompanied by the Registration number(s) of the letter(s) of approval of trial/study, if available.


The mode of references followed by the journal is that of Index Medicus, in accordance with the

Vancouver Reference Style, including the punctuation.

The following web addresses can be logged on for various sources that can be used for reference/ citation purposes.

www. library.uq.edu. autrainingcitationvancouv.pdf


http://www.library.uq.edu.au/faqs/end note/ style.html (This is specific Vancouver guide to electronic references).

Conflict of Interest:

The journal requires submission of patent conflict of interest form, duly filled in by the principle author is our basic requirement.

All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations, beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.

the principal author is advised to use The International Committee of Journal Medical Editing (ICMJE) for which can be download from the below mention link or can be download from the journal website.


Misconduct from the Author:

The Annals of PIMS is equipped with Turn it in (A plagiarism software provide by Higher Education omission of Pakistan). It is used to find out any plagiarism in the received articles

We have received only a few genuine complains regarding falsification & fabrication. The due action was taken against the responsible. The cases were immediately reported to Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) & Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) for necessary action at their end. The information was also passed on to the concerned institute where research had taken place and may be used for future promotion

The publications were retracted and the responsible back lashed.

Above mentioned policies are discussed and upgraded in editorial board meetings

Submissions from Members of the Editorial Board:

The member of the Editorial Board do not enjoy any special favors what so ever. Additionally, they have been allowed for the submission of only three articles in one year

Editors have clarified the procedure for handling manuscripts from editorial board members. All editorial board members have been informed that all necessary information (i.e. Authorship declaration, Ethical approval from the IRB board, Conflict of Interest, etc.) regarding the progress of the peer review can be obtained from the editorial office.

Peer Review Policy:

The journal uses "double blind" reviewing, where the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the process. Instructions to the reviewers is also mentioned in the review proforma.

The journal attempts to prevent conflicts of interest by not inviting reviewers from the same institutions as authors. However, previous relationships or places of employment may not be apparent. In our invitation to potential reviewers, we ask that they decline to review if they know, or guess the identity of the author.

Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

  • The Editor-in-Chief evaluates all manuscripts upon submission. Those rejected before being sent to review have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are assigned to Associate Editor, who will select two peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter.

Final Report

  • There are several possible decisions: to accept or reject the manuscript outright, to request minor or major revisions, and to accept or reject after revision(s). Referees and/or Associate Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

To reiterate, the essential information that must accompany the manuscripts includes:

  • Letter of undertaking for exclusive submission to Annals of PIMS.
  • Informed written consent.
  • Ethical approval(s).
  • Contribution to authorship (as detailed above).
  • Competing interest (or disclosure of conflicts).
  • Funding sources (if any).