How to publish in Electronic Physician and other peer reviewed journals


A large percentage of the manuscripts that are submitted to academic journals for publication are rejected because the manuscripts are poorly written. This column (Road to Academic Excellence) presents some of the well written papers of Electronic physician. Some of the articles in this column are educational article on scientific writing; and others are great samples of articles in format of "Original Articles", "Systematic Reviews", "Meta Analyses", "Case Reports", "letter to-Editors", and other common types of scientific papers. 


Featured articles of the "Road to Academic Excellence"

(Click on the title of each article to access the abstract and full-text PDF):


Article No.1:

Title: Writing an eye-catching and evocative abstract for a research article: A practical approach

Description: This paper provides a new and step by step approach for writing a good structured abstract for original articles.


Article No.2:

Title: Prevalence of smoking in northwest Iran: a meta-analysis

Description: This is a great sample of "Meta Analysis". Meta Analyses are among our preferred review articles and have a good chance of publishing in this journal. We recommend our authors preparing their Meta Analyses using a similar approach.


Article No.3:

Title: Contributing factors of obesity among stressed adolescents

Description: This is a great sample of "Systematic Review Article". Systematic Reviews are among our preferred review articles and have a good chance of publishing in this journal. We recommend our authors preparing their Systematic Reviews using a similar structure.


Article No.4:

Title: The Design and Development of a Computer Game on Insulin Injection

Description: This is a great sample of "Original article presenting a new product, a software here". Original articles that present the methodology of creating new products and software are among our preferred articles and have a good chance of publishing in this journal.


Article No.5:

Title: Rhabdomyolysis due to Lamivudine administration in acute viral hepatitis B infection: a case report from Malaysia

Description: This is a great sample of "Case Report Article", especially the approach used by author for organizing different parts of this article. We recommend our authors preparing their case reports using a similar approach. 


Article No.6:

Title: Why publish a medical case report?

Description: This is an educational article on the publication ideas of case reports. The author categorized the case report articles into four main types. If your case fits in each of the four categories, then you should go for writing a case report article from your case study research. This article was written specifically for medical case reports, but the ideas that are presented in the article are applicable to case studies in other fields of science, such as psychology, educational science, and social science.


Article No.7:

Title: Writing for academic journals: A general approach

Description: This paper focuses on some standard procedures for writing the three most common types of academic papers, i.e., traditional review articles, original articles, and case reports. Read more.


Article No.8:

Title: Aging parents’ caregiving and rehabilitating a brain-injured son: an autoethnography of a 10-year journey

Description: We believe this article is an exemplary sample of a special type of scientific articles: Autoethnography. Hence we believe that the method the authors followed in organizing and presenting the article is commendable, thus recommended for other qualitative approach researchers in preparing and subsequently penning down their autoethnography.


Submit your educational articles to the column "Road to Academic Excellence": 

Educational articles on different aspects of Scientific writing, Research methodology, Research design, Publication ethics, Research ethics, and ideas on converting research to publication are welcomed. Please click here to submit manuscript.


Geographical distribution of contributors and types of articles published in Electronic Physician


This report describes the international nature of the journal Electronic Physician (ISSN: 2008-5842). The journal established in 2008 and began to publish medical and health science research in 2009. The authors who submitted articles that were published in the first year (2009, Volume 1) were Indian scholars and two authors from Iran. 


Consistent with the goal of publishing more international articles, the journal was introduced to academia in a step-by-step process that involved slow, but steady, progress. The number of articles published in the journal increased, and the geographical distribution of the authors, reviewers, editors, and other contributors expanded. In 2009, we published mostly editorials and original articles, but, in recent years, we have published the most common types of contributions, including original articles, systematic reviews, meta analyses, case reports, editorials, research letters and letters to the editor (LTE), traditional reviews, mini-review articles, conference abstracts, hypotheses and ideas, news reports, interviews, short communications, and brief reports.


The list below shows each country's share of authors, reviewers, and editors from October 2009 to August 2015. Also, the map (Figure 1) shows that we did attract contributions from all of the inhabited continents of the world. Data were derived from our archives of full-text papers and conference abstracts published in the journal, as well as from the lists of all reviewers, technical editors, language editors, and conference editorial teams who contributed to the work we published from October 2009 to August 2015.


The largest numbers of contributors were from Iran, Malaysia, and India, but the geographical origins of the contributors are shown on the map below, and the home countries are listed in alphabetical order, as follows:

Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, China, Egypt, England, Georgia, Germany, Iran, India, Italy, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, and United States of America


Figure 1. Map showing the geographical distribution of the contributors to the Electronic Physician journal 


In June 2015, the Editor of the journal Electronic Physician decided to conduct research on the statistics of the time periods between ‘submission to acceptance’ of manuscripts and ‘acceptance to publication’ of manuscripts in past years. The records and archives of the journal were checked, and only the records for 2014 and 2015 were included in this research due to the lack of availability of comparable information in the earlier years.

According to the data obtained from all of the valid information about our published articles during 2014 and 2015, the mean time between the submission and acceptance of a manuscript was 96 days, which became 78 days after the outliers were removed. However, in the first half of 2015 (January through June, Issues 1 and 2), the mean time was reduced significantly to 71 days, which became 39 days after removing the outliers. 

In 2014, the mean time between acceptance and publication of a manuscript was 35 days, which became 32 days after removing the outliers. In 2015, the mean time was 59 days, which became 55 days after removing the outliers. 

According to our data, the main factor that determines the time between submission and acceptance is the time the authors use to prepare the revisions of their manuscript based on the comments and suggestions of our reviewers. However, there were two main factors that determined the time between acceptance and publication of manuscripts in 2014 and 2015, i.e., 1) the time authors take to revise their manuscripts based on our English editor's suggestions and comments and to revise the reference section based on input from our quality control technicians and 2) the limited number of issues published each year, which currently is four issues. Since the journal now has a wide range of authors from different parts of the world and submissions increased substantially during 2014-2015, the Editor of the journal has decided to publish the journal monthly beginning in July 2015.


Editorial office,

Electronic Physician Journal

July 02, 2015

Electronic Physician is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The COPE’s code of conduct guidelines are available at:


Part A. Editor’s Responsibilities:

A.1. Publication decisions

Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts should be published. Editors and reviewers treat all manuscripts as confidential documents do not show to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor. 


A.2. Fair play

The editor evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


A.3. Confidentiality

The editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers as appropriate. In the case of a misconduct investigation, the editor-in-chief may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors). 


A.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research.


A.5. Corrections

When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, a correction will be published as soon as possible. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction.


A.6. Ensuring the integrity of the published record

If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, the editor-in-chief will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, the journal will take this to the institutional level. In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, the journal may consider informing readers about these concerns, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded the journal will publish comment that explains the findings of the investigation. Editor-in-chief may decide to retract a paper if a serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it.


Part B. Reviewers’ responsibilities:

B.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments on the manuscript that help the author(s) to revise the manuscript in higher standards and quality.


B.2. Promptness

Reviewers that feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


B.3. Confidentiality

The reviewers should treat as confidential document any manuscripts received for review. They manuscript should not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.


B.4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


B.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.


B.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


B.7. Reviewer misconduct

Electronic physician will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. 


Pat C. Authors responsibilities:

C.1.Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.


C.2. Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.


C.3. Originality and Plagiarism

Electronic physician checks the originality of the manuscripts by iThenticate and presents the “Similarity Report” to the authors. Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. 


C.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

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


C.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.


C.6. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.


C.7. Individual and organizational acknowledgments:

All of the individuals or organizations that made a contribution to the work but they do not meet the criteria for authorship, should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section of the manuscript. The corresponding author should not acknowledge any individual or organization without a written permission.


C.8. Hazards

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.


C.9. Reporting of research involving humans or animals

Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals). If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms). Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative).


C.10. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.


C.11. Fundamental errors in published works

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.