The following instructions and guidelines will assist authors preparing to submit manuscripts to the SJMLS. Submissions of regular journal issues should be made by e-mail to email@example.com or upload it through our website.
Manuscripts should usually be submitted as a Word document. The document should be double-spaced throughout. The manuscript should contain the following information: title; author(s); corresponding author’s e-mail address and phone numbers; abstract; key words; introduction, materials and methods, results including tables and figures, discussion, conclusion and recommendations, conflict of interest declaration and references. Maximum word count for abstracts: 300 words
The journal referencing style is Harvard. All references must be cited in the text in the author ‘s name and date’ format. If there are two authors, both names should be given. If there are three or more authors; Erhabor et al (1988) or (Erhabor et al., 1988). The reference list at the end of the article should be in alphabetical order and restricted to work already published. Unpublished material, including work submitted to a journal but not yet formally accepted, should not be included. Each reference should include the first author’s surname, followed by initials. (Erhabor, O.A., Adias, T.C. and Mainasara, A.S.). In cases of multiple authorship, give the names of all authors, unless there are more than three authors in which case you list the first three authors followed by et al. Spell out names of journals in full. Use of abbreviated journal names is not acceptable.
Examples of referencing within the text:
This finding is consistent with previous report by Cormack (1994).
Previous report by Erhabor and Adias (2016)
Recent research (Mainasara and Dallatu, 2004) suggests that…
If you are quoting several works published by the same author in the same year, they should be differentiated by adding a lower-case letter directly, with no space, after the year for each item (Earlier research by Erhabor and Adias in Sokoto (2016a) found that HIV prevalence is higher among females. However, later research carried out in Port-Harcourt by Dunn (1993b) indicated that there were no gender differences in the prevalence of HIV.
Referencing a material published in a journal:
Erhabor, O., Adias, T.C. and Dallatu, M.K. (2016). HIV among women of African Descent in Abuja, Nigeria. Journal of Medicine;10: 100–108.
Referencing a material published in a book:
Erhabor, O. (2016). Quality Management issues in Medical Laboratory Science practice.
Laboratory Total Quality Management. 2nd edn. Author House Publishers Bloomington, Indiana: 282–289.
Barker, R., Kirk, J. and Munday, R.J.(2008). Blood Transfusion. 3rd ed. Bloomington University Press, London: 100-124.
Figures and Tables:
All illustrations (table and figures) should be referred to as figures and tables in the text and numbered in a single sequence in the order in which they are mentioned in the text (Table 1 or figure 1).
Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author as a PDF file by e-mail. To avoid delays in publication, proofs should be checked immediately for typographical errors and returned as instructed in the proof e-mail.
The Journal welcomes original articles from all the fields related to Medical Laboratory Science including; Haematology, Blood Transfusion science, Clinical Biochemistry, Immunology, Medical Microbiology, Histology, Cytology, Medical Microbiology, Bacteriology, Medical Virology
Journal e-mail address for manuscript submission: firstname.lastname@example.org
Journal Address: Faculty of Medical Laboratory Science, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria
|Article Processing Fee
Fifteen Thousand Naira (N15,000 OR $50.0)
Bank: Skye Bank
Account Name: Sokoto Journal of Medical Laboratory Science
Frequency of publication: Quarterly.
Please upload your manuscript here
Upon submission of your article, you are to download and fill the Copyright form and then scan it and send it to our email: email@example.com
Our Peer- Review Philosophy:
In Sokoto Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, we take pride in providing our authors the best possible service and critique of their manuscript. We have a team of expert peer-reviewers. Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. 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.
Our Expectation from our Reviewers:
To enable us meet with our publication frequency, we will be glad If you ca kindly review articles sent to you within a timelines of 2 weeks to the editor. Confidentiality
Any papers sent for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals).
Acknowledgement of Sources:
Reviewers are encouraged to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. 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.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.
Questions to guide the reviewer in assessment of the paper: Please provide examples and evidence for responses, do not simply answer yes or no.
1. Topic and content:
1. Is the topic relevant for the journal?
2. Is the content important to the field?
3. Is the work original? (If not, please give references)
Does the title reflect the contents of the article?
To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions?
4. Introduction / Background:
Is the study rationale adequately described?
Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?
1. To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?
2. Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
3. Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
4. How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
5. How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?
7. Ethical Consideration:
If there are issues related to ethics, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?).
8. Analysis and results:
1. Are the methods adequately described?
2. Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
3. Do the results answer the research question?
4. Are the results credible?
5. Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
6. Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explain?
1. How well are the key findings stated?
2. To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
3. Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
4. Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
5. Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?
Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?
1. Are the references appropriate and relevant?
2. Are they up to date?
3. Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?
4. Do the references follow the recommended style?
5. Are there any errors?
1. Is the paper clearly written?
2. Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?
3. Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language?