- The paper submitted for publication must contain original unpublished material.
- The paper must be in simple English and neatly typewritten on double space. If some vernacular term is unavoidable its English equivalent must be given in parenthesis. Abbreviations and acronyms should be spelled out when used for the first time.
- The paper shall be published in URP journals on the entire responsibility of authors.
- Papers beyond the scope or that do not follow the format of this journal will be returned to the authors without being reviewed.
- All enquiries concerning the publication of accepted papers should be addressed to firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
During submission of the article, a cover letter should be included having
- Authors full address and telephone/fax number.
- The type of article along with the title.
- The corresponding author should mention the undertaking that if any animal studies carried was in accordance with their country or institutional ethical committee and also state that the manuscript has not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis).
Please refer “Model Cover Letter” of this journal page to get an idea.
Research articles present original research and address a clearly stated specific hypothesis or question. Papers should provide novel approaches and new insights into the problem addressed. Research Article should arrange in the following order: Title, authors name and affiliations, abstract, keywords, brief introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgements, abbreviations and references.
Download detailed format of Research Article
Review articles are an attempt by one or more authors to sum up the current state of the research on a particular topic. Ideally, the author searches for everything relevant to the topic, and then sorts it all out into a coherent view of the “state of the art” as it now stands. Review Articles should inform about:
- the main researchers working in a field
- recent major advances and discoveries
- significant gaps in the research
- current debates
- future directions
Only review articles from experts in the field will be considered for publication.
detailed format of Review Articles.
Short communication is for a concise, but independent report representing a significant contribution in the field. Short communication is not intended to publish preliminary results. But if these results are of exceptional interest and are particularly topical and relevant will be considered for publication. It should be no more than 2500 words, and could include two figures or tables. It should have at least 8 references. Short communications will also send for peer review.
detailed format of Short Communications
A technical note is an article giving a brief description of a technique or procedure. It may also refer to the modification of a technique, procedure or equipment of interest to the journal. It should be no more than 2500 words, and could include two figures or tables. It should have at least 8 references. Technical notes will also send for peer review
Consisting of brief, illustrative reports. The discussion should highlight any previous similar reports, the importance of the issues identified and recommendations by the authors. [Maximum 1000 words].
This includes readers’ comments on articles published in the Journal during the previous 6 months. Short studies, observations and opinions may also be submitted (approx. 300 to 500 words with a maximum of 1 table or figure and 10 references).
Submission and Review Process
All manuscripts (must be in English and in MS Word format) and should be submitted via our online system. To avoid unnecessary errors you are strongly advised to use the "spell-check" and "grammar-check" functions of your word processor. To decrease bias during the editorial process, we employ the classic double-blind peer review process.
- Upon receipt, a manuscript is assigned a reference number.
- A copy of the numbered manuscript is electronically sent to 3-4 referees.
- Referees evaluate the manuscript according to established criteria on an evaluation form.
- The Editor-in-Chief transmits reviewer evaluations and comments to the corresponding author within 3 weeks.
Final disposition of the manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
Manuscripts with significant results will be reviewed and published at the highest priority and speed. Possible decisions on a manuscript are:
- accepted as it is
- accepted after minor revision
- accepted after major revision
If revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible.
Submitted materials shall not be returned, whether or not they are accepted; therefore please retain a copy of all materials sent.
Upon submitting a manuscript, authors are required to provide the name, address, and e-mail address of at least 3 to 5 potential reviewers for editorial consideration. Suggested reviewers may include anyone knowledgeable in the area of study presented. Authors should not knowingly recommend as a potential reviewer a person with a potential conflict of interest, either financial or personal (positive or negative bias), such as a mentor or close associate. Additionally, individuals located at the same institution as any of the authors should not be recommended. The editors will consider these nominations even though they are not constrained to follow them.
Authors using experimental animals and human subjects in their investigation must seek approval from the appropriate Ethical Committee in accordance with "Principles of Laboratory Animal Care" (NIH publication no. 85-23, revised 1985) and/or the declaration of Helsinki promulgated in 1964 as amended in 1996. The method section must include a statement to prove that the investigation was approved and that informed consent was obtained.
Frequently authors are required to submit revised versions of manuscripts in the light of reports from expert reviewers and editorial comments. While submitting revised article, include the referees’ remarks and point to point clarification to those remarks at the beginning in the revised article file itself. In addition, mark the changes as underlined or colored text in the article. Please include in a single file
- referees’ comments
- point to point clarifications on the comments
- revised article with text highlighting the changes done
Include the original comments of the reviewers/editor with point to point reply at the beginning of the article in the ‘Article File’. In the event that an author disagrees with suggestion from the reviewers, we invite the author to respond by explaining his or her reason, which are respectfully considered.
Proofs: Electronic proofs will be sent (e-mail attachment) to the corresponding author. Page proofs are considered to be the final version of the manuscript. Changes made by technical editors for style, grammar, and readability are not to be altered by authors unless a scientific error has been introduced. With the exception of typographical or minor clerical errors, no changes will be made in the manuscript at the proof stage. Corrected galley proof must be returned within 3 days after receiving via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org with subject line galley proof and manuscript number. If we aren’t receiving galley proof within 4 days we will publish manuscript in as appeared as in galley proof. Universal Research Publications reserves the right to edit for clarity, organization, style, or space.
Copyright: Submission of a manuscript implies: that the work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, or thesis) that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the copyright to the publisher.