Author Instruction

Last Updated: July 2026

Authors are expected to adhere strictly to the following protocols to facilitate a rigorous peer review and efficient publication cycle. These guidelines ensure that all submissions meet the scholarly standards required for international indexing and academic integrity.

Blind Peer Review

To maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer review process, manuscripts must be entirely devoid of author identities, institutional affiliations, or identifiable metadata. Any breach of this anonymity will result in an immediate administrative return of the document for correction prior to formal review.

Statements regarding funding sources, ethical approvals, and data availability must not be included within the manuscript text. These disclosures are to be managed exclusively through the journal's online submission portal to preserve the impartiality of the reviewers.

Manuscript Template

The Editorial Board strongly encourages authors to utilize the provided Universal Template, which is standardized across all ETFLIN journals. This document, available as a Microsoft Word file (.docx), incorporates the precise typographical styles required for academic publication. It is mandatory that all manuscripts be submitted in .docx format; PDF submissions will not be accepted for the editorial workflow.

Download manuscript template: Universal-Template.docx

While the journal allows for initial submissions that do not strictly adhere to the layout of the template, specific non-negotiable criteria must be met at the outset. Authors must ensure that all identifying information is removed from the manuscript to facilitate a blind review. Furthermore, all citations and the final bibliography must strictly follow the Vancouver referencing style.

Structural Requirements

The organizational structure of the manuscript varies according to the article type. Research articles must fundamentally include an Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References. Authors are permitted to use professional alternatives for section headings, such as "Background" in place of "Introduction," or "Materials and Methods" as an alternative to "Methodology."

The Introduction and Conclusion sections are mandatory for all submission types, with the exception of Letters to the Editor, Retractions, and Corrections. For empirical research, the Methodology and Results sections—the latter of which may be integrated into a "Results and Discussion" section—are compulsory. Title, Abstract, Keywords, and References are  required components of every manuscript submitted to the journal.

Authors may incorporate supplemental sections to enhance the depth of their work, such as Limitations, Future Perspectives, or Author Perspectives. These additions are particularly encouraged when they provide critical context or summarize "Take Home Messages" for the readership.

Title, Abstract, and Keywords

The title of the manuscript serves as the primary identifier for the research and should be articulated with maximum brevity while maintaining descriptive clarity. Authors must ensure the title is original and has not been utilized in prior publications. The inclusion of non-standard abbreviations within the title is strictly prohibited to ensure indexing accuracy. This title must be clearly displayed within the submitted manuscript file.

Every submission, regardless of article type, must be accompanied by an abstract and a set of keywords, both of which are required in the online metadata and the manuscript itself. The abstract must be composed as a single, cohesive paragraph not exceeding 250 words. To maintain a scholarly flow, authors should avoid the use of subheadings or structured sections within the abstract.

Keywords should consist of specific terms or phrases that represent the core themes or the most prominent aspects of the study. Each manuscript must include a minimum of three and a maximum of six keywords or phrases. These identifiers are critical for enhancing the visibility of the work within academic databases and should be selected based on their relevance to the manuscript's primary findings.

Introduction

The Introduction should establish the scientific context of the study, explain why the research is needed, identify the knowledge gap, and lead logically to the study objectives or research questions. It should provide sufficient background for readers to understand the problem without becoming an extensive review of the entire field.

As a general guide, an Introduction should contain no more than four paragraphs. This is a recommendation rather than a strict limit. A longer Introduction may be appropriate when the topic is complex, the research requires additional contextual explanation, or the article type warrants a broader introduction. The appropriateness of its length and organization will be evaluated by the editor and reviewers.

For original research articles, the Introduction should generally address the following elements in a coherent sequence:

• The first part should introduce the research problem, explain its scientific or practical importance, and establish the urgency or relevance of addressing it. Relevant evidence, quantitative data, epidemiological information, established scientific findings, or other credible sources should be used where appropriate to demonstrate the significance of the problem. General statements about the importance of a topic should not replace specific supporting evidence.
• The next part should summarize the principal approaches, methods, interventions, technologies, or explanations currently available for addressing the problem. Authors should identify the relevant strengths and limitations of existing approaches and explain why further investigation remains necessary. The discussion should be selective and critical, rather than a chronological account of every previously published study.
• The subsequent part should establish the research gap. Authors should explain what remains unknown, insufficiently investigated, inconsistent, inadequately validated, or unresolved in the existing literature. The gap should follow logically from the preceding discussion and should be supported by relevant evidence. Authors should then explain how the proposed study addresses this gap, including its scientific rationale and, where appropriate, its expected contribution beyond existing knowledge.
• The final part should state the principal research objective clearly. Specific research questions, hypotheses, or secondary objectives may also be included when relevant. The objectives should be sufficiently precise to guide the Methods and Results sections and should correspond to the conclusions ultimately drawn from the study.

These elements do not necessarily need to occupy separate paragraphs. Authors may combine them where doing so improves the flow of the argument. The essential requirement is that readers can readily understand the problem, the limitations of current knowledge or solutions, the reason for undertaking the study, and the specific question the research is intended to answer.

The Introduction should prioritize directly relevant, credible, and reasonably current literature. Claims about the prevalence, burden, effectiveness, safety, or limitations of existing approaches should be supported by appropriate evidence. Authors should avoid unsupported claims of novelty, exaggerated statements about the importance of their work, and assertions that a research gap exists merely because a particular study has not been conducted by the authors.

For review articles, the Introduction should establish the scope and importance of the topic, explain why a review is needed at the present time, identify the principal questions or issues to be examined, and clarify the intended contribution of the review. The rationale may involve conflicting findings, emerging developments, fragmented evidence, methodological weaknesses, or the need for a new conceptual understanding. A review Introduction should not attempt to present the entire literature in advance of the main body of the article.

Methods

The Methods section should provide a transparent and sufficiently detailed account of how the study was designed, conducted, and analyzed. It should enable editors, reviewers, and readers to evaluate the appropriateness of the methodology and, where feasible, allow other qualified researchers to reproduce or independently verify the procedures.

The level of detail should reflect the complexity and nature of the study. Authors should not assume that a procedure is self-explanatory simply because it is commonly used in their field. Established methods may be cited, but methods that are unfamiliar, substantially modified, or central to the study's validity should be described with sufficient detail to explain their application.

Study design, setting, and procedures. Authors should identify the study design and describe the setting, location, relevant dates or study period, and overall experimental or analytical approach, as applicable. The Methods should make clear what was investigated, how the investigation was organized, and why the selected approach was appropriate for the research objectives.

For studies involving participants, biological specimens, laboratory samples, experimental animals, or other defined study units, authors should describe the source of the study population or materials, sample selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment or sampling procedures, and the rationale for the sample size. Where applicable, the manuscript should explain the use of control groups, experimental groups, randomization, blinding, independent replicates, and procedures used to minimize bias. The relevant unit of analysis should be clear, particularly when multiple observations originate from the same participant, specimen, animal, or experimental unit.

Materials, reagents, equipment, and software. Materials that are important to the study's conduct or reproducibility should be identified precisely. Depending on their relevance, authors should provide the material or product name, grade or purity, brand or manufacturer, manufacturer location and country, and catalogue number, product code, model, or other identifying information where appropriate. Chemicals, reagents, reference standards, cell lines, biological materials, formulations, instruments, and specialized equipment should be described at a level that enables readers to distinguish the materials actually used from other potentially different products.

For example, a reagent may require information on its grade, purity, supplier, and catalogue number, whereas an analytical instrument may require its manufacturer, model, and relevant operating configuration. Software and computational tools should be identified by name and version. Routine materials that have no meaningful effect on the methodology do not necessarily require exhaustive product-level detail; reporting should be proportionate to their scientific relevance.

For pharmaceutical, chemical, formulation, and analytical studies, the Methods should describe the composition and preparation of relevant formulations, the concentrations and quantities used, the processing conditions, and the experimental parameters necessary to understand the final material or preparation. Where applicable, authors should report dissolution or extraction conditions, temperature, pH, duration, mixing conditions, storage conditions, calibration procedures, and other parameters that may affect the results. The exact information required will depend on the procedure being investigated.

Measurements, experimental procedures, and analytical methods. Authors should describe how samples were prepared, treatments or interventions were administered, measurements were obtained, and outcomes were determined. Relevant instrument settings, procedural steps, validation procedures, measurement units, and predefined outcome measures should be reported. If an established procedure was modified, the modifications and their rationale should be explained. Where a method requires validation, authors should report the relevant validation approach and criteria.

For clinical, epidemiological, and other participant-based studies, the Methods should identify the principal and secondary outcomes, how they were measured, and when the measurements were obtained. Eligibility criteria, participant recruitment, follow-up procedures, and relevant data sources should be described as appropriate. Variables such as age, sex, gender, or other population characteristics should be defined and handled appropriately when relevant to the research question. Authors should also explain the rationale for important subgroup analyses where these are part of the study.

For computational, mathematical, modeling, and data-driven studies, authors should report the data sources, preprocessing procedures, computational framework, model or algorithm, relevant parameter settings, assumptions, validation approach, and software or library versions. Specialized analyses may also require information on model configuration, optimization procedures, initialization, random seeds, computational environment, or hardware where these materially affect reproducibility. When automated or AI-based tools form part of the research methodology, their technical role and the information needed to evaluate or reproduce their use should be reported. Any applicable declaration requirements remain governed by the journal's separate policies.

Statistical analysis. The statistical analysis should be described in sufficient detail to allow readers to understand how the data were evaluated and whether the selected methods were appropriate for the research questions and study design. Authors should identify the statistical tests, models, or analytical procedures used and explain important methodological choices, especially when the analysis is not routine.

The Methods should identify the statistical software and version, the significance threshold where hypothesis testing is used, and the procedures for checking relevant assumptions. Depending on the study, authors may also need to describe sample-size calculations, power assumptions, handling of missing data, treatment of outliers, multiple-comparison adjustments, post hoc analyses, covariate selection, model selection, or sensitivity analyses. The distinction between prespecified analyses and exploratory analyses should be made clear when relevant.

Authors should distinguish biological or experimental replicates from repeated measurements or technical replicates and identify the unit of analysis. They should also explain how data were summarized and which measures of variability or uncertainty were used. The reporting of statistical results in the Results section should be consistent with these prespecified analytical procedures.

Statistical significance alone is not sufficient to establish the magnitude, precision, practical importance, or scientific relevance of a finding. The analytical approach should, where appropriate, support reporting of effect estimates, confidence intervals, measures of uncertainty, and other results necessary for meaningful interpretation. Statistical procedures should not be selected or changed solely to obtain favorable or statistically significant findings.

Ethics, protocols, and transparency. Where applicable, the Methods should identify the relevant ethics approval body, approval or protocol reference, informed-consent procedures, animal welfare approval, trial registration, or other study-specific oversight arrangements. If formal approval was not required, authors should explain the applicable basis when appropriate. These statements should be consistent with ETFLIN's separate Ethics and Consent and related editorial policies.

Authors should report any material deviations from the original protocol or planned procedures that may affect the interpretation of the findings. For registered or protocol-based studies, relevant registration identifiers and protocol information should be provided in accordance with the applicable article type and journal requirements. The Methods should describe the procedures actually followed, rather than presenting planned procedures as though they were completed.

Additional expectations for review articles. Review articles should provide a transparent account of how the literature was identified and considered, appropriate to the type and scope of the review. Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses require a clear description of their methods, including information such as the databases and other information sources searched, search dates, search strategies, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, data extraction, assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias where applicable, and the methods used to synthesize the evidence. Meta-analyses should also describe the statistical synthesis methods and relevant assessments of heterogeneity, as appropriate.

Narrative reviews do not necessarily require the same exhaustive procedures as systematic reviews. Nevertheless, authors should explain the approach used to identify and prioritize relevant literature sufficiently for readers to understand the scope and basis of the review. Authors should not imply that a review is systematic, comprehensive, or exhaustive unless its methods support that characterization.

Authors are encouraged to consult the relevant reporting guidance available through the EQUATOR Network. Depending on the study design, relevant guidance may include CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, ARRIVE for animal research, or appropriate guidance for qualitative, diagnostic, and other specialized studies. For systematic reviews, authors should consult the applicable version of the PRISMA guidance, including PRISMA 2020.

Results

The Results section should present the findings of the study in a clear, logical, and objective manner. It should follow the research objectives, outcomes, or analytical sequence established in the Introduction and Methods. The most important findings should be presented first, followed by supporting findings in an order that allows readers to understand how the evidence answers the research questions.

Authors should report the results of the analyses actually performed, including findings that do not support the original hypothesis or expected outcome. Relevant exclusions, incomplete observations, unsuccessful experiments, missing data, or deviations affecting the interpretation of the findings should be reported where appropriate. Selective presentation of favorable outcomes while omitting relevant contradictory or null findings is not acceptable.

Quantitative results should be sufficiently complete to allow their magnitude and reliability to be assessed. Where applicable, authors should report the number of observations, denominators, absolute numbers, percentages, relevant descriptive statistics, effect estimates, measures of variability or uncertainty, and statistical results. Percentages should not be presented without the corresponding underlying numbers when these are necessary for interpretation. Reported analyses should be consistent with the statistical methods described in the Methods section.

When results are based on experimental measurements, authors should provide enough information to understand the observed differences, variability, and relevant experimental conditions. When analytical performance, model performance, or computational outcomes are evaluated, the reported results should correspond to the stated evaluation criteria and validation procedures. Where relevant, results from independent validation, sensitivity analyses, or alternative model specifications should be distinguished from those obtained during model development or exploratory analysis.

For qualitative studies, the Results should present the principal themes, categories, patterns, or interpretations derived from the data. Supporting evidence should be provided where appropriate, with sufficient context to show how the reported findings relate to the collected data. The selection and presentation of quotations or other illustrative material should not misrepresent participants' experiences or compromise confidentiality.

For review articles, the main body should synthesize the evidence according to the review objectives and relevant themes. Systematic reviews should report the results of study selection, characteristics of included studies, relevant quality or risk-of-bias assessments, and the evidence synthesis. Where appropriate, authors should describe the consistency, variation, and limitations of the available evidence. Narrative reviews should organize the literature into a coherent analytical account rather than presenting an unstructured series of study summaries.

The Results section should primarily report what was observed or derived from the analysis. Explanations of why the findings occurred, comparisons with the broader literature, and their wider implications generally belong in the Discussion. Brief descriptive statements necessary to clarify a finding are acceptable, but extensive interpretation should not obscure the evidence itself.

Authors should avoid duplicating all information already presented in tables or figures in the narrative text. The text should draw attention to the most important observations and explain their relevance to the stated objectives, while preserving the distinction between the reported findings and their subsequent interpretation.

Discussion

The Discussion should interpret the findings in relation to the research objectives, existing evidence, and the broader scientific or practical context. It should explain what the results mean, how they contribute to current understanding, and what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the available evidence.

The Discussion should generally begin with a concise synthesis of the principal findings and their relationship to the research objectives. This opening should not repeat the Results section in detail. Instead, it should establish the central message of the study and provide a foundation for interpreting the findings.

Authors should then compare and critically evaluate their findings in relation to relevant previous research. They should identify where the findings agree with, extend, or differ from existing evidence and offer plausible explanations for important similarities or discrepancies. Where findings conflict with previous studies, authors should consider relevant differences in study design, experimental conditions, sample characteristics, measurement methods, analytical approaches, or other factors that may explain the inconsistency. Differences should not be dismissed merely because they do not support the authors' expectations.

Interpretations should be scientifically reasoned and proportionate to the evidence. Proposed mechanisms or explanations should be distinguished from those directly demonstrated by the study. Associations should not automatically be interpreted as causal relationships, and findings obtained from laboratory models, computational analyses, animal studies, or limited samples should not be generalized to broader populations or practical settings without adequate justification.

The Discussion should explain the study's principal contribution. Authors should identify what is genuinely new or important about the findings, how the work advances the field, and whether it changes, strengthens, qualifies, or challenges existing understanding. Novelty claims should be carefully justified, and the significance of a study should not be exaggerated merely because its findings are statistically significant or consistent with the original hypothesis.

Strengths and limitations. Authors should discuss the major strengths and limitations that influence the credibility, precision, applicability, or interpretation of the findings. Relevant considerations may include sample size, sampling procedures, measurement uncertainty, potential sources of bias, lack of controls, missing data, methodological assumptions, short observation periods, restricted settings, model assumptions, or limited external validation. The discussion should explain how important limitations may affect the findings, rather than simply listing them. Authors should also distinguish limitations inherent to the study design from shortcomings that directly compromise the reliability of a particular conclusion.

Implications and future research. The Discussion should identify the implications of the findings for further research, theory development, methods, practical applications, clinical practice, public health, policy, or industry, as appropriate to the study. Recommendations should follow from the strength and scope of the evidence. Authors should explain which questions remain unresolved and identify specific, scientifically justified priorities for future investigation. Broad statements that more research is needed are less useful than recommendations that identify the uncertainty to be addressed and explain why it matters.

For review articles, the Discussion should critically synthesize findings across the literature. Authors should consider the overall strength and consistency of the evidence, differences in research quality, conflicting results, methodological weaknesses, and uncertainties that limit existing conclusions. The Discussion should provide an integrated assessment of the field rather than repeat the content of individual studies or reproduce the thematic summaries from the main body.

Authors should not introduce new experimental findings or unsupported claims in the Discussion. Any additional analysis that materially contributes to the study's conclusions should be reported transparently and supported by the appropriate methodology and results. Interpretations, explanations, and recommendations must remain traceable to the evidence presented in the manuscript.

Conclusion

The Conclusion should provide a concise and direct answer to the principal research objective or question. It should communicate the most important conclusion supported by the study and clarify its scientific or practical significance without repeating the entire Introduction, Results, or Discussion.

For original research articles, the Conclusion should identify the principal contribution of the findings and explain what can reasonably be inferred from them. Where relevant, it may state a limited practical implication or a clear next step for further research. However, it should not introduce new data, previously unreported analyses, unrelated arguments, or recommendations that go beyond the evidence.

The strength of the language used in the Conclusion should reflect the strength of the research design, the reliability of the findings, and the limitations acknowledged in the Discussion. Authors should avoid presenting preliminary evidence as definitive, treating an absence of statistical significance as proof that no effect exists, or implying broad applicability when the study does not support such generalization.

For review articles, the Conclusion should summarize the overall understanding that emerges from the reviewed evidence, identify the principal unresolved issue where appropriate, and convey the most important takeaway for the field. It should remain distinct from the Author Perspective section, which has a separate purpose in ETFLIN review articles.

A Conclusion should not be artificially extended to create the impression of greater significance. A focused paragraph may be sufficient for many manuscripts, whereas more complex studies may require additional explanation. The appropriate length depends on the article's contribution and the conclusions that need to be communicated.

If a particular article type does not require a separately labelled Conclusion, authors should follow the applicable article structure and incorporate the concluding message into the appropriate final section. A separate Conclusion should be included when required by the journal's instructions for that article type.

Author Perspective in Review Articles

All review articles submitted to ETFLIN must include a dedicated Author Perspective section. This section is intended to distinguish the authors' critical, evidence-informed assessment of the field from the descriptive synthesis of previously published work. It should demonstrate the authors' scientific judgment, provide a coherent interpretation of the current state of knowledge, and identify meaningful directions for future development.

The Author Perspective should address the questions or issues that the authors consider most important in light of the evidence examined. Depending on the topic, this may include unresolved scientific controversies, methodological weaknesses that have impeded progress, promising but insufficiently validated approaches, conceptual developments, areas where established assumptions warrant reconsideration, or emerging research opportunities.

Authors should articulate their own assessment of the available evidence and explain the reasoning supporting that assessment. They may identify which research directions appear most promising, which problems require priority attention, or what changes in research practice or conceptual thinking may be warranted. Such judgments should be grounded in the literature and the analysis presented in the review, rather than being based solely on personal preference or speculation.

The section should clearly distinguish established evidence from interpretation, hypothesis, and opinion. Where the evidence is conflicting, limited, or uncertain, that uncertainty should be acknowledged. Authors should not present a proposed mechanism, research direction, or personal assessment as an established fact unless the available evidence warrants that conclusion.

The Author Perspective should not simply repeat the review's findings, summarize each subsection, reproduce the Discussion, or restate the Conclusion. Its purpose is to explain what the authors make of the evidence and what they believe deserves attention beyond the descriptive synthesis. It should add intellectual value through critical assessment, reasoned judgment, or a clearly articulated research agenda.

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Author Perspective must remain consistent with the findings and limitations of the formal evidence synthesis. Authors may discuss the implications of the findings and identify priorities for future research, but they should not disregard the results of the review or overstate the implications of evidence whose certainty is limited. For narrative reviews, the section may offer a broader conceptual interpretation, provided that it remains traceable to the literature discussed in the manuscript.

The Author Perspective should ordinarily be placed after the main evidence synthesis and Discussion, where applicable, and before the Conclusion. Authors may use suitable subheadings within the section when these improve clarity, but the section should read as a coherent, reasoned position rather than an unrelated collection of opinions.

The requirement applies to review articles generally, including narrative reviews, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and other review formats accepted by the journal. Its scope and level of detail may vary according to the type of review and the subject being examined, but the fundamental purpose remains the same: to provide the authors' critical and evidence-informed perspective on the field.

Structure and Additional Considerations for Different Article Types

The Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion structure is generally appropriate for original research articles. However, not all scholarly contributions follow the same reporting format. Authors should adapt the structure to the scientific purpose of the article and the requirements applicable to its type.

For original experimental, observational, clinical, and computational research, the manuscript should establish a clear connection between the Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. The research objectives should guide the methods, the methods should explain the reported findings, and the Discussion and Conclusion should interpret those findings without exceeding the available evidence.

For review articles, the main body may be organized by scientific themes, research questions, methodological approaches, or other logical categories. A dedicated Methods section should be provided when appropriate to the review design, with the level of transparency determined by the approach used. Formal systematic reviews and meta-analyses must report their review methods in sufficient detail to support evaluation of the search, selection, appraisal, and synthesis processes. All review articles must also include the Author Perspective section described above.

Case reports, research protocols, methodological studies, short communications, theoretical papers, and other specialized contributions may require different section headings or a different order of presentation. Authors should not create artificial Results or Methods sections when these are not applicable to the nature of the contribution. Instead, they should use a structure that allows the work, its basis, and its contribution to be evaluated appropriately.

Additional subsections may be used where they materially improve clarity. Examples include study design, sample preparation, experimental procedures, analytical validation, statistical analysis, theoretical framework, computational implementation, or evidence synthesis. Subsection headings should be informative and reflect the content that follows. Excessive fragmentation should be avoided when a continuous explanation would be clearer.

The ICMJE Recommendations provide further guidance on manuscript preparation, while the EQUATOR Network maintains reporting guidelines for different study designs and research disciplines. Authors should consult the applicable guideline when preparing their manuscripts and ensure that the selected structure and reported information are appropriate for the work presented.

Ultimately, a well-prepared manuscript should allow readers to understand why the work was undertaken, how it was performed, what was found, how the findings should be interpreted, and what conclusions are justified. Compliance with the expectations for each section is an important part of scientific transparency and should be considered during manuscript preparation as well as editorial assessment and peer review.

Font Style and Size

While the journal permits the use of various font type/family during the initial submission phase, authors are cautioned against selecting fonts with ambiguous character designs. Certain typefaces may obscure the distinction between similar characters, such as "a" and "o," which significantly diminishes legibility. Such stylistic choices may negatively impact the editorial evaluation and the peer-review process by impeding the clarity of the scholarly discourse.

The body text of the manuscript must maintain a consistent font size between 11 pt and 12 pt across all paragraphs to ensure professional uniformity. A clear visual hierarchy should be established through the strategic use of headings. The primary title must be formatted as Heading 1 at 18 pt, while major sections such as the Abstract, Introduction, and Methodology should utilize Heading 2 at 14 pt. Both Heading 1 and Heading 2 require a bold weight to distinguish structural transitions. All headings must use Title Case style.

Further organizational layers should be delineated using Heading 3 for subsections at 13 pt bold. For more granular divisions, Heading 4 and subsequent levels should be set at 12 pt using an italicized bold style. This systematic approach to heading levels ensures that the internal logic of the manuscript remains accessible to both editors and readers throughout the technical review.

Textual elements within tables and figures should ideally mirror the font size used in the main body paragraphs. However, the journal allows for a reduction in font size within these visual aids if necessitated by space constraints or complex data presentation. In such instances, authors must prioritize legibility to ensure that all data points and labels remain clearly decipherable upon publication.

Figures

All figures must be integrated directly into the manuscript and positioned immediately following the paragraph in which they are first referenced. It is a mandatory requirement that every figure is explicitly cited within the relevant textual discourse. In instances where figures are excessively large, numerous, or voluminous, authors should relocate them to a separate file to be uploaded as supplemental data, adhering to the journal's specific protocols for such materials.

Technical specifications for imagery require files to be submitted in JPG, JPEG, or PNG formats with a minimum resolution of 300 dpi to ensure sharpness and clarity. Manuscripts containing blurred or low-quality visual representations will be returned to the author for remediation. Furthermore, any text contained within an illustration must align with the language of the manuscript. Figure titles must not be embedded within the image itself but should be provided as editable text. The caption must be placed immediately below the figure, utilizing Sentence case formatting as demonstrated: 

Figure 1. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the synthesized gold nanoparticles at 50,000x magnification. The particles exhibit a uniform spherical morphology with an average diameter of 20 nm.

If your figure consists of multiple parts that are mentioned separately in the text, you must provide a unique label for each part. Labels must consist of letters only; the use of numbers or symbols as labels for figure parts is not permitted. If all single letters have been used, please proceed with double letters (e.g., AA or aa). You may use uppercase, lowercase, or a combination of both. However, the casing must be consistent: if lowercase letters are used in the figure, they must also be lowercase in the figure caption.

Figure 2. Growth rate of bacteria under different pH levels. (a) Growth curve at pH 5.0; (b) Growth curve at pH 7.0; (c) Growth curve at pH 9.0. Symbols (†) denote significant differences (p < 0.05) compared to the control group.

Symbols should only be used as markers to indicate levels of significance or specific notes. Any symbols used within the figure must be clearly defined in the caption.

Tables

Consistent with the protocols for figures, tables must be situated within the manuscript text immediately after the paragraph of first mention. Extremely lengthy tables that disrupt the narrative flow should be moved to the supplemental data section. This ensures the primary manuscript remains concise and readable for the editorial and review teams.

The titling convention for tables differs from that of figures; table titles must be positioned above the respective table and formatted in Sentence case. To maintain professional clarity, each table must feature distinct headers that are rendered in bold weight. These structural requirements are essential for the accurate interpretation of data and the overall technical integrity of the publication.

Tables must be constructed exclusively as editable text elements and are strictly prohibited from containing embedded images. Any visual content, such as chemical structures, diagrams, or complex symbols that cannot be rendered as text, should be extracted from the table and presented as a separate, clearly labeled figure.

Furthermore, authors must not submit tables as static images or screenshots within the manuscript. All tables must be generated using the native "Insert Table" functionality within Microsoft Word.

Table labels must be formatted as superscripts. You may use letters, numbers, or symbols as labels. All symbols must be placed at the end of the relevant word, phrase, or sentence, and their descriptions must be provided in the final row of the table.

Please do not place notes outside the table; they must be integrated as part of the table structure. Typically, notes are placed in a new row at the bottom of the table, with the cells merged into a single cell.

Equations

Mathematical equations must be integrated into the manuscript as editable text rather than as embedded static images. To ensure professional clarity and technical accuracy, authors are required to utilize the native Microsoft Word Equation editor for all mathematical expressions.

Every equation presented in the manuscript must be numbered sequentially using Arabic numerals enclosed in parentheses—for example, (1)—positioned at the right-hand margin. Authors must provide explicit definitions for every symbol used within an equation immediately following its first appearance in the text.

To adhere to international scientific standards, all alphabetic variables such as $x$x, $y$y, and $z$z must be italicized within both the equations and the main body text. In contrast, standard functions (e.g., $\sin$sin, $\cos$cos, $\log$log), chemical symbols, and numerical values should be set in regular (roman) font. Greek characters, such as $\alpha$α, $\beta$β, and $\gamma$γ, as well as mathematical operators like $\sum$∑ and $\int$∫, should be sourced from the standard Insert menu or the equation tool to maintain character integrity across different software platforms.

Graphical Abstract

A graphical abstract serves as a visual summary of the manuscript’s core findings, designed to provide readers with an immediate, holistic understanding of the research at a glance. By distilling complex methodologies or conceptual frameworks into a single illustrative representation, authors can significantly enhance the accessibility and impact of their work.

The inclusion of a graphical abstract offers substantial professional benefits. Such articles are prominently featured on the ETFLIN homepage, which serves to increase visibility and the potential for citation. Furthermore, eligibility for prestigious designations, such as "Featured Article" or "Editor’s Choice," is strictly contingent upon the presence of a high-quality graphical abstract. Consequently, the Editorial Board strongly recommends that authors prioritize the creation of this visual component.

While authors may employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to assist in the generation of graphical abstracts, they must strictly adhere to the following technical and ethical requirements:

• Ethical Disclosure: Any use of AI in the creation of the graphical abstract must be explicitly declared within the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript.

• Design Composition: The abstract should emphasize illustrations or study flows rather than dense textual descriptions.

• Technical Dimensions: Images must maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio and a minimum resolution of 300 dpi to ensure professional clarity.

• File Compatibility: Visuals must be submitted in JPG, JPEG, or PNG formats.

Standardized Units and Terms

To maintain scientific precision and international readability, all manuscripts must adhere to standardized systems of measurement and terminology. The journal requires the exclusive use of the International System of Units (SI) for all quantitative data. When presenting measurements, authors should ensure a single space remains between the numerical value and the unit, except in the case of degrees, minutes, and seconds of arc.

Non-standard abbreviations and acronyms must be defined at their first mention within the main text. Once defined, the abbreviation should be used consistently thereafter. Authors are advised to avoid the use of abbreviations within the title or abstract unless they are universally recognized within the specific discipline. This practice prevents ambiguity and ensures that the research remains accessible to a multi-disciplinary audience.

Latin and Scientific Terms

The use of Latin nomenclature is required for biological classifications, including genus and species names. These terms must be rendered in italics to distinguish them from the surrounding text (e.g., Escherichia coli). After the first mention of a biological entity, the genus name may be abbreviated to its initial letter followed by a period, provided no ambiguity with other mentioned genera is created.

Common Latin expressions used in academic discourse, such as in vivo, in vitro, et al., and via, should also be italicized. This stylistic distinction aids in the visual organization of the manuscript.

Consistency in Technical Terminology

Accuracy in terminology extends to the use of chemical nomenclature and symbols. Chemical compounds should be identified by their IUPAC names, although common names may be used if they are more prevalent in the relevant field of study. Authors must ensure that all symbols and variables are used consistently throughout the manuscript, including within figures, tables, and equations.

When utilizing specialized technical terms, authors should verify their alignment with established discipline-specific dictionaries or lexicons. Inconsistent terminology or the use of colloquialisms in place of formal scientific language can detract from the perceived rigor of the study and may lead to requests for significant revision during the editorial review phase.

References

To ensure technical precision and minimize manual formatting errors, the Editorial Board highly recommends that authors utilize professional reference management software such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote. The use of these tools facilitates the seamless organization of citations and ensures that the bibliography remains dynamically linked to the in-text citations throughout the revision process.

For authors employing Mendeley or Zotero, a customized bibliographic style has been developed specifically for the ETFLIN journal suite. This style automatically implements the required Vancouver variations, including the use of parentheses and the specific author-listing rules.

Download citation style: ETFLIN CSL

The journal mandates the use of the Vancouver referencing style for all submissions. To ensure typographical consistency with the journal's layout, citations within the text must be enclosed in parentheses, for example (1), rather than square brackets or the use of superscript and subscript formatting. This numerical system must correspond to a sequentially numbered reference list at the end of the manuscript, organized in the order in which the sources first appear in the text.

In instances of multiple authorship, authors should list the first six contributors followed by the abbreviation "et al." if the total number of authors exceeds six. For sources with six or fewer authors, all names must be listed in full. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all bibliographic data; providing digital object identifiers (DOIs) is strongly encouraged for all journal articles to facilitate digital cross-referencing.

Authors should refer to the following templates when constructing the final reference list:

Journal Article

Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(4):284-7.

Authored Book

Murray PR, Rosenthal KS, Kobayashi GS, Pfaller MA. Medical microbiology. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002.

Book Chapter

Meltzer PS, Kallioniemi A, Trent JM. Chromosome alterations in human solid tumors. In: Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, editors. The genetic basis of human cancer. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002. p. 93-113.

Web Page

World Health Organization. Hypertension [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hypertension

Plagiarism

The journal maintains a rigorous stance on academic integrity, and all submitted manuscripts undergo a comprehensive screening for originality. To qualify for peer review, a submission must not exceed a maximum cumulative similarity index of 15%. Furthermore, the journal enforces a strict threshold for individual sources; no single primary source may contribute more than 1% to the total similarity score of the manuscript.

While the editorial team conducts independent verification using specialized software, authors are encouraged to perform their own similarity checks prior to submission. The resulting plagiarism report may be included as a supplementary document during the submission process to demonstrate transparency. However, please be advised that the editorial office will perform a definitive re-evaluation, and the internal findings will serve as the final metric for determining the manuscript's eligibility for publication.

AI Usage

Authors are permitted to use AI for limited editorial and technical support, such as refining text, grammar, and style; translating drafts; enhancing figure or image clarity without altering data; formatting citations; or assisting with code optimization. All AI usage must be strictly supervised and verified by the authors.

AI tools must NOT be used to generate fake data, manipulate data or figures to alter scientific conclusions, write primary narrative content or scientific arguments, or manufacture artificial citations. Furthermore, AI tools cannot be listed as an author or co-author.

The use of AI must be declared in the acknowledgments section or a separate designated section (refer to specific journal guidelines, if applicable). Authors must declare all types of AI tools used, along with their specific purpose and scope, and explicitly state that they accept full responsibility for all content and impacts arising from the use of AI in their paper or study.

Failure to properly declare the use of AI tools or engaging in unauthorized AI usage (including data fabrication, unverified citations, or improper text generation) constitutes academic misconduct. Manuscripts violating this policy will be subject to immediate desk rejection. If non-compliance is identified post-publication, the paper may be formally retracted, and the journal reserves the right to notify the author’s home institution and ban future submissions from the author(s).

Supplemental Data

Authors may provide additional figures, tables, or complex mathematical derivations that exceed the practical scope of the main manuscript as Supplemental Data. These elements should be compiled into a single document and labeled specifically to distinguish them from primary manuscript content—for example, Supplemental Table 1 or Supplemental Figure 1. The numbering for supplemental materials is independent of the main text; therefore, the sequence must begin anew at 1 for each category of media.

Within the supplemental file, every table, figure, or equation must be accompanied by a descriptive title formatted in Sentence case. To ensure professional clarity, these titles should follow the standard naming convention: 

Supplemental Table 1. Example of a supplemental table title.

When citing these materials within the main body of the manuscript, authors must explicitly include the "Supplemental" prefix to prevent confusion with the primary data. This applies to all references, whether directed toward a Supplemental Figure, Supplemental Table, or Supplemental Equation.

Supplemental data should be submitted in universally accessible formats, such as .docx or .xlsx. In instances where the supplemental materials comprise multiple files or diverse data formats, authors are required to consolidate these items into a single ZIP or RAR archive. This archive must be uploaded to the submission system under the designated "Supplemental Data" category to ensure it is properly linked to the primary manuscript throughout the editorial workflow.

For further details regarding our academic standards, authors are encouraged to review the comprehensive Editorial Policies page. This resource provides in-depth information on peer review workflows, conflict of interest disclosures, and the ethical responsibilities of both contributors and reviewers.

Furthermore, we strongly recommend that authors consult the official Publishing Policies of ETFLIN. This section outlines essential protocols concerning copyright transfer, open-access licensing, and the journal's long-term preservation and archiving strategies.