Open Access & Peer-Reviewed
Submit ManuscriptThese instructions explain exactly how to prepare, structure, submit, and revise manuscripts for the Journal of Patient Care and Services. Our goal is to reduce avoidable delays, improve review quality, and help authors publish clinically meaningful research with high editorial precision. Please read this guide before submission, use the checklist sections during manuscript preparation, and align your files with the formatting and reporting expectations described below.
Before formatting your manuscript, confirm that your study directly supports patient care improvement, service quality, healthcare operations, or clinical decision support outcomes.
Manuscripts are commonly returned before review when they have unclear patient care relevance, weak methods reporting, missing ethics statements, or limited linkage between results and practical implications. Basic descriptive reports with no analytic depth may also fail initial screening.
To avoid desk rejection, include a concise fit statement in your cover letter that explains why your work belongs in a patient care and service research journal.
Use a clear and standardized structure to help reviewers evaluate methodology, validity, and implementation relevance efficiently.
Provide full article title, author names, affiliations, corresponding author details, ORCID where available, and any relevant acknowledgments or funding notes.
Use a structured abstract when suitable. Include objectives, methods, key results, and concise conclusions tied to care practice or service impact.
Supply 4 to 8 keywords reflecting population, intervention, service domain, methodology, and outcome area to improve indexing accuracy.
Define the care problem, knowledge gap, and practical significance. End with clear study objectives and specific research questions or hypotheses.
Report design, setting, participants, inclusion criteria, measurements, analysis strategy, and ethics approval with enough detail for replication.
Present outcomes in a logical sequence with accurate statistics, tables, and figures. Separate raw findings from interpretation.
Interpret results against prior evidence, discuss implementation value, limitations, and implications for care teams, policy, and future studies.
Provide concise takeaways linked to patient care operations and service quality outcomes without unsupported claims.
Editorial decisions rely on transparent reporting and verifiable research conduct. Ethical completeness is mandatory.
State institutional ethics approval number and approving body where required. For human participant studies, include consent procedures and explain how confidentiality and privacy were protected. If consent was waived, provide the exact reason and oversight context.
For vulnerable populations, describe additional safeguards. If data are anonymized or de identified, clarify the process used and the data governance framework applied by your institution.
Presentation quality strongly affects review clarity. Keep visual material direct, legible, and tied to outcomes that matter for care decisions.
Upload high resolution files with readable labels, clear axis definitions, and legends that allow interpretation without returning to the main text.
Use concise titles, unambiguous row labels, and consistent units. Ensure totals, percentages, and denominators are fully aligned.
Use a consistent citation style throughout. Include DOI links where available and verify all in text citations appear in the reference list.
Supplementary data should be clearly named, appropriately described, and referenced in the main manuscript when relevant to interpretation.
Follow this sequence to keep your manuscript moving efficiently through editorial review and production.
Final manuscript, title page, figures, tables, supplementary files, and cover letter with fit summary.
Use Manuscriptzone or the simple submission form and ensure all metadata fields are complete.
Submit a point by point response with precise revision mapping and clear evidence for every change.
Complete author approval, copyright files, and final production checks before publication.
Use this checklist before submission to reduce avoidable corrections and accelerate editorial handling.
The manuscript addresses patient care, service systems, quality improvement, or clinical operations with clear practical significance.
Sampling, intervention logic, outcome definitions, and statistical methods are complete and reproducible.
Approvals, consent details, data privacy controls, and conflict declarations are documented in the manuscript.
All figures, tables, and calculations are cross checked for consistency with the narrative and supplementary files.
Discussion explains what care teams, managers, and policy stakeholders can apply in real service environments.
Terminology is consistent, abbreviations are defined, and writing is clear for multidisciplinary reviewers and readers.
Citations are complete, DOI information is included where possible, and author metadata is fully accurate.
Cover letter, author details, declarations, and all manuscript files are ready for immediate review processing.
Use this extended guidance when preparing complex manuscripts such as multi site interventions, mixed methods evaluations, or policy impact analyses.
Report effect sizes with confidence intervals where appropriate and describe model assumptions in clear language. Avoid overreliance on isolated p values without context. When adjustments are applied, explain why they were necessary and how they influence interpretation. If subgroup analyses are exploratory, label them clearly to prevent overstatement.
For observational studies, discuss potential confounding and mitigation strategy in practical terms. For intervention studies, describe intervention fidelity and adherence detail so reviewers can evaluate operational reliability. Include missing data handling methods and sensitivity checks when relevant.
Tables should present denominators and units consistently. Any divergence between abstract values and body tables should be corrected before submission, as these are common causes of technical revision.
Use concise section openers that state purpose before detail. In the discussion, separate interpretation from recommendation so readers can see the evidence chain. Avoid policy claims that exceed study boundaries. Where implementation implications are offered, identify what conditions must be present for transferability.
During revision, reply to each reviewer point with one of three clear actions: accepted and revised, partially revised with rationale, or respectfully declined with evidence. Mark exact section locations for all edits. This response style substantially improves second round efficiency and editor confidence.
Before resubmission, run a final pass for terminology consistency, table numbering, abbreviation definitions, and reference completeness. Technical consistency is part of scientific credibility.
Run a final quality assurance routine before upload. This prevents avoidable requests and keeps editorial flow efficient.
Confirm that sample size, outcome names, and statistical values are consistent across abstract, tables, and results text.
Check funding, ethics, consent, data availability, and conflict statements for full completeness and exact wording.
Validate that each citation appears in the reference list with complete details and DOI where available.
Open all uploaded files before submission to ensure no corruption, missing legends, or incorrect version attachment.
Authors who maintain process discipline from the first draft to final upload experience fewer technical queries and faster editorial progression. Keep a single source file for manuscript changes, track all declaration updates, and align the abstract, tables, and conclusion before submission. This routine reduces avoidable revision loops and improves decision speed.
Select your preferred route and send your manuscript to a journal focused on practical patient care value, rigorous evidence, and global open access visibility.
