Based on our policy, we accept the below article types during submission. Please read them before you start your submission.

Research Articles

Research Articles also are called â€œOriginal Articlesâ€, which are considered the common types of articles. The content of the paper must justify its length.

Abstract:

A structured abstract is required including these headings:

Introduction
Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusions

Full Text:

For the original research, traditional sections are required including:

Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Declaration statement
References

In the full text of an original article, the minimum number of:

References are 25
Word count is 3500-8000 words (including title until references)

Systematic / Meta-Analysis / Scoping Review

Briefland accepts PRISMA:

Authors should report systematic reviews and meta-analyses following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement.

Structure:

For Systematic Reviews, both the abstract and text of the manuscript should be subdivided into the following sequential sections:

Context: Provide a sentence or two explaining the importance of the review question.
Objective: State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as to cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed.
Data Sources: Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. Include in the search the most current information possible, ideally conducting the investigation several months before the date of manuscript submission. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (English language or human subjects). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract, including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the "Methods" section of the text.
Study Selection: Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Under details of selection include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. Specify the method used to apply these criteria (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria.
Data Extraction: Describe guidelines for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference). State the method by which the guidelines were applied (e.g., independent extraction by multiple observers).
Results: State the main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, and outline the methods used to obtain these results. For meta-analyses, state the significant pooled outcomes and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Accompany numerical results by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. Evaluation of screening and diagnostic tests includes sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. For assessments of prognosis, summarize survival characteristics and related variables. State the significant identified sources of variation between studies, including differences in treatment protocols, protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates.
Conclusions: Clearly state the conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise), limiting interpretation to the review domain.