Home > Author Guidelines


* Publication Ethics
* Open Access Policy
* Conflict-of-Interest Statement
* Statement of Human and Animal Rights
* Statement of Informed Consent

For Authors >

* Author Guidelines
* Copyrights
* Peer Review Process
* Publication Fees

For Reviewers

* Role of Reviewers
* Instructions to Reviewers

For Editors

* Obligations of Editors

For Readers

* Subscription


Author Guidelines


All manuscripts are expected to be prepared as a single PDF or MS Word document with the complete text, references, tables and figures included. Any revised manuscripts prepared for publication should be sent as a single editable Word document. Manuscripts should be written in English. Title, author(s), and affiliations should all be included on a title page as the first page of the manuscript file, followed by a 100-300 word abstract and 3-5 keywords. Your text should be single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end. All figures or photographs must be submitted as jpg or tif files with distinct characters and symbols with minimum 300 dpi (dots per inch). Tables and equations should be in an editable rather than image version. Tables must be edited with Word/Excel. Equations must be edited with Equation Editor. Figures, tables and equations should be numbered and cited as Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, etc. in sequence.


USP does not approve of any form of plagiarism used in submitted manuscript. All manuscripts submitted to USP journals will be checked for plagiarism by our managing editor before being passed to the Editor-in-Chief. Any manuscripts found to be in violation of plagiarism will be rejected by our managing editor.


The title should capture the conceptual significance for a broad audience. The title should not be more than 50 words and should be able to give readers an overall view of the paper’s significance. Titles should avoid using uncommon jargons, abbreviations and punctuation.

Cover letter 

All submissions should include a cover letter as a separate file. A cover chiefessays.net letter should contain a brief explanation of what was previously known, the conceptual advancement with the findings and its significance to broad readership. The cover letter is confidential and will be read only by the editors. It will not be seen by reviewers.

List of Authors

List those that have made significant contribution to the reported study as co-authors, and for others who have participated in certain aspects to be listed or acknowledged as contributors in their study. The corresponding author has to ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper, and agree to its submission for publication.


List all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under a heading such as ‘clinical investigators’ or ‘participating investigators’ and their function or contribution should be described.

Section Headings

Please do not number section headings. Use a maximum of three levels of headings made clear by orthographic indicators, i.e. capitals, italics, bold etc.


Introduction should provide a background that gives a broad readership an overall outlook of the field and the research performed. It tackles a problem and states its important regarding with the significance of the study. Introduction can conclude with a brief statement of the aim of the work and a comment about whether that aim was achieved.

Materials and Methods

This section provides the general experimental design and methodologies used. The aim is to provide enough detail to for other investigators to fully replicate your results. It is also required to facilitate better understanding of the results obtained. Protocols and procedures for new methods must be included in detail to reproduce the experiments.


Ethics information should be included in a subheading labelled “Ethics Statement” in the “Methods” section of your manuscript file, as detailed as possible.


This section can be divided into subheadings. This section focuses on the results of the experiments performed.


This section should provide the significance of the results and identify the impact of the research in a broader context. It should not be redundant or similar to the content of the results section.


Please use the conclusion section for interpretation only, and not to summarize information already presented in the text or abstract.

Conflict of Interest

Authors are required to declare both financial and/or non-financial conflict of interest in order to prevent any embarrassment or accusations of wrong-doing if they were to be made public after the publication of their manuscript. If there are no conflict of interest present, authors are required to include a statement declaring that there are no conflict of interest.


Authors should declare all financial and non-financial support that have the potential to be deemed as a source of competing interest in relations to their submitted manuscript in this section. Financial supports are generally in the form of grants, royalties, consulting fees and more. Examples of non-financial support could include the following: externally-supplied equipments/biological sources, writing assistance, administrative support, contributions from non-authors etc.


This section is optional and is for all materials (e.g. advanced technical details) that has been excluded from the main text but remain essential to readers in understanding the manuscripts. This section is not for supplementary figures. Authors are advised to refer to the section on ‘Supplementary figures’ for such submissions.

Supplementary information

This section is optional and contains all materials and figures that have been excluded from the entire manuscript. These information are relevant to the manuscript but remains non-essential to readers’ understanding of the manuscript’s main content. All supplementary information should be submitted as a separate file in Step 4 during submission.

In-text citations

Reference citations in the text should be numbered consecutively in superscript square brackets. Some examples:
  1. a)       Negotiation research spans many disciplines [3, 4].
  2. b)       This result was later contradicted by Becker and Seligman [5].
  3. c)        This effect has been widely studied [1–3, 7].
Personal communications and unpublished works can only be used in the main text of the submission and are not to be placed in the Reference section. Authors are advised to limit such usage to the minimum. They should also be easily identifiable by stating the authors and year of such unpublished works or personal communications and the word ‘Unpublished’ in parenthesis. E.g. (Smith J, 2000, Unpublished)


This section is compulsory and should be placed at the end of all manuscripts. Do not use footnotes or endnotes as a substitute for a reference list. The list of references should only include works that are cited in the text and that have been published or accepted for publication. Personal communications and unpublished works should be excluded from this section. For references in reference list, all authors must be stated. Authors referenced are listed with their surname followed by their initials. All references should be numbered (e.g. 1. 2. 3. etc.) and sequenced according to the order it appears as an in-text citation. References should follow the following pattern: Author(s) followed by year of publication, title of publication, full journal name in italics, volume number, issue number in parenthesis, page range and lastly the DOI (if applicable). If the referred article has more than three authors, list only the first three authors and abbreviate the remaining authors to italicized ‘et al.’ (meaning: “and others”).


  • Journal article (print) with one to three authors
  1. Younger P, 2004, Using the internet to conduct a literature search, Nursing Standard, vol.19(6): 45-51.
  • Journal article (print) with more than three authors
  1. Gamelin FX, Baquet G, Berthoin S, et al. 2009, Effect of high intensity intermittent training on heart rate variability in prepubescent children, European Journal of Applied Physiology,vol.105: 731–738.
  • Journal article (online) with one to three authors
  1. Jackson D, Firtko A and Edenborough M, 2007, Personal resilience as a strategy for surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: a literature review, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol.60(1): 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04412.x.
  • Journal article (online) with more than three authors
  1. Hargreave M, Jensen A, Nielsen TSS, et al. 2015, Maternal use of fertility drugs and risk of cancer in children—A nationwide population-based cohort study in Denmark, International Journal of Cancer, vol.136(8): 1931–1939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29235.


  • Book with one to three authors
  1. Schneider Z, Whitehead D and Elliott D, 2007, Nursing and midwifery research: methods and appraisal for evidence-based practice, 3rd edn, Elsevier Australia, Marrickville, NSW.
  • Book with more than three authors
  1. Davis M, Charles L, Curry MJ, et al. 2003, Challenging spatial norms, Routledge, London.
  • Chapter or Article in Book
  1. Knowles MS 1986, Independent study, in Using learning contracts, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 89–96.


  • Proceedings of meetings and symposiums, conference papers
  1. Chang SS, Liaw L and Ruppenhofer J (eds) 2000, Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 12–15, 1999: general session and parasession on loan word phenomena. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
  • Conference proceedings (from electronic database)
  1. Bukowski RM, 2009, Prognostic factors for survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: update 2008, Innovations and challenges in renal cancer: proceedings of the third Cambridge conference, Cancer, vol. 115 (10): 2273, viewed 19 May 2009, Academic OneFile database.
  • Online Document with author names
  1. Este J, Warren C, Connor L, et al. 2008, Life in the clickstream: the future of journalism, Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, viewed 27 May 2009, <http://www.alliance.org.au/documents/ foj_report_final.pdf>
  • Online Document without author name
  1. Developing an argumentn.d., viewed March 30 2009, <http://web.princeton.edu/sites/writing/Writing_Center/WCWritingResources.htm>
  • Thesis/Dissertation
  1. Gale L, 2000, The relationship between leadership and employee find-bride-review.net/ empowerment for successful total quality management, thesis, University of Western Sydney, viewed 31 March 2009, Australasian Digital Thesis database.
  • Standard
  1. Standards Australia Online, 2006, Glass in buildings: selection and installation, AS 1288–2006, amended 31 January 2008, viewed 19 May 2009, SAI Global database.
  • Government Report
  1. National Commission of Audit, 1996, Report to the Commonwealth Government, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
  • Government report (online)
  1. Department of Health and Ageing, 2008, Ageing and aged care in Australia, viewed 10 November 2008, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing>
  • No author
  1. Guide to agricultural meteorological practices1981, 2nd edn, Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.
Note: When referencing an entry from a dictionary or an encyclopedia with no author there is no requirement to include the source in the reference list. In these cases, only cite the title and year of the source in-text. For an authored dictionary/encyclopedia, treat the source as an authored book.

Types of Articles

USP journals is dedicated to publish and provide access to quality information and valuable contributions to the journal’s respective field. It follows a specific format for each article type to the credit of weight in the information and maintains diverse appearance for reader’s convenience. Therefore the authors will be guided to meet the submission criteria of corresponding article type with the author’s responsibilities, manuscript preparation and submission. Below are the generalized guidelines for the authors to meet standards of Herbert Publications. It is recommended to visit ‘Authors’ section at respective journal page for more information. Contributions can be made in the format of: Original articles should contain completely new principal research testifying major contributions to the field. The study should represent new findings or discoveries in a subject area that were not published before. The report may contain significant findings, methodology importance and considerable evidence to the conclusions. Research articles should contain original principal research testifying major contributions to the field. The report may contain significant findings, methodology importance and considerable evidence to the conclusions. Reviews are summarized descriptions of recent findings and significant developments at particular subject area of research considering the Journal’s scope. They should include critical assessments of novel technologies, evaluation of subject advancement, elucidate unresolved questions, comparative analysis with a substantial coverage of previous works and highlight future prospects. Although there are no restrictions with the length and content of a review, authors should consider drawing reader’s attention and interest with quality information. Mini-reviews are summarized descriptions based on one or more recent findings and significant developments at particular subject area of research considering the Journal’s scope. It is usually commissioned to create interest on the work and warrant further commentaries on the published articles. Case report is a detailed description on rare diseases, novel occurrences, unusual indication or symptoms of a disease, unreported studies or unexpected events observed in a patient during the course of treatment. The study should highlight and report new cases in diagnosis of emerging diseases or specify variations and associations with new diseases. Case report should contain educational values and emphasize on the need of amendments to usual practices and approaches in the field. Case reports should comprise different findings with updated review on previous cases and investigation in the field. There should not be any preventive and therapeutic intrusions in the Case reports from the findings since they need more confirmed evidences. Commentaries are short account commissioned by the Editorial board and call for attention on the current issues confined to a particular subject area while sometimes unsolicited articles are accepted from contemporary scientists or experts in the field. The context is to analyze the issues of interest to readers or a discussion on current research and recently published articles in the Journal. Commentaries may also include editorial opinion relevant to scope of the Journal and discuss external implications such as new technology, grant applications, peer reviewing process on research. Debate article can be an argument from an area of subject based on research practices, social aspects and ethical concerns. The content should reflect a polite approach from an author to argue without creating damage to reputation of the referred individual or organization. The viewpoint should address pros and cons on the subject issue with factual statements and proper evidences. Editorials reflect the opinion of an Editorial Board member or staff for particular Journal highlighting recent changes, concerned issues or announcements in relevance to the journal. This may include editorial management and policies. Hypotheses are short articles outlining significant predictions of methods and possibilities that were not conducted before and a proposed phenomenon that has to be tested. It should not reflect review or tested method but must be an inspection in to previous studies generating surprise to readers and provide logical explanation that propels further research. Letter to Editor is a response to or substantial re-analysis of a research article recently published in the journal. It is a brief report or critical assessment on findings in the original research article. It is an article that may not comprise standard research but provide readers opinion, remarks, support or contradictions that are adequate to the scope of the journal. Letter to Editor may be subjected to editing for maintaining clarity and prescribed length at editor’s discretions and may forwarded to peer-review. Meeting reports should present detailed information about a subject area or research methodologies discussed at large meetings. This may include new techniques, recent findings and studies, proposed methods or applications relevant to the topics solely discussed at the meetings. Methodologies should comprise novel approaches in experiments and procedures applied at both laboratory and computational levels demonstrating the advancements over the existing methods and applications. These may be either improvised versions of tools and techniques, protocols or an absolute newly developed method. Before submission, the author should make sure that the method or tool is tested and undergone different validations. Software articles should contain description for newly developed software tools and web-based applications intended to extend the usage on other websites or by other researchers. It should represent the broad value and utility over the existing tools or previously available software demonstrating improved usability in comparison with related software. Database articles should contain vast biomedical information made available to wide utility, accessibility for the retrieval of data. Short report is a helpful description on particular area of research confirming the results from previously published articles. The presentation should be in a way of extension to the previous research work with confirmatory results and evidences on negative results, clinical studies or even patients from a same family. Short report should provide the advancement in control to previous work. The basis and motivation for the work submitted as short report should be acknowledged. Correspondence articles are letters addressed to the Editor with a short comment on topical issues or reader’s reaction corresponding to an informal publication previously published in the journal. Usually correspondences will not be peer reviewed and should not contain technical comments on research articles or principal research data. Technical advance articles should comprise novel approaches in experiments and procedures applied at both laboratory and computational levels demonstrating the advancements over the existing methods and applications. These may be either improvised versions of tools and techniques, protocols or an absolute newly developed method. Before submission, the author should make sure that the method or tool is tested and undergone different validations. Study Protocols can be for anticipated or ongoing prospective clinical research, and should provide a complete description of the theory, rationale and methodology of the study.

Types of decisions

Immediate Reject after pre-review screening After submission, all papers undergo a pre-review assessment by members of the editorial team based on the following criteria: 1.Does the paper fall within the broad remit of USP journals in having an explicitly applied focus with clear application to the management of natural systems? 2. Does the paper contain sufficient ecological science for the USP journals? 3. Is the scope of the paper broad rather than narrow with the potential to make a substantial advance in the development of applied ecology, and/or does it provide novel methodological insight? 4. Is the subject area covered by the paper topical and novel, and hence potentially of interest to a wide readership? 5. Are the design, methodology, data quality and analysis of a standard appropriate for peer review by the Journal? 6. Does the paper conform to Journal standards with respect to length, format and language? Up to 50% of papers submitted to the Journal will be rejected without review because they fail on one or more of these criteria. In some cases, authors will be invited to resubmit their paper once the problems have been addressed. The aim of pre-review is to identify papers that have the potential to make novel, interesting and significant contributions of direct relevance to environmental management. We aim to aid authors by identifying papers that do not have the potential we are looking for, and by returning these papers as quickly as possible so that the publication process will not be delayed. Rejecting papers at pre-review that are unlikely to make it through the peer review process ultimately saves everyone time and reduces the burden on our referee community and editorial system. If a paper is not rejected at the pre-review stage it goes forward for peer-review. Typically, each paper is reviewed by two independent referees and an assessment is made by one of the Journal’s associate editors. The final decision is taken by one of the senior editors based on the information gained through the peer review process. Reject Following peer review, the paper is judged not to be acceptable for publication in USP journals and resubmission is not possible. Resubmit The submitted version of the paper is not acceptable and requires major revision but there is clear potential in the work and the Journal is prepared to consider a new version. Authors are offered the opportunity to resubmit their paper as a new submission. Concerns will remain regarding the suitability of the paper for publication until the editors are convinced by the authors that their paper fits the scope and standards of the Journal. The resubmitted manuscript will be returned to the original associate editor if at all possible. Resubmissions should be returned within 4 months of receiving our decision letter. Revision The paper requires changes before a final decision can be made. Authors are asked to modify their manuscript in light of comments received from referees and editors, and to submit a new version for consideration within 3 weeks of receiving the decision letter. A point-by-point explanation of how comments have been addressed must be supplied with the revised version of the paper. Revisions may undergo further peer review and papers may undergo more than one round of revision. If the authors do not revise their papers to the satisfaction of the editors, the paper can still be declined from publication in the Journal. Provisional accept The paper is acceptable for publication, subject to conditions that need to be addressed in producing a final version of the manuscript. These may include sub-editing changes and minor amendment to ensure the paper fully matches our criteria. At this stage we will request an exclusive licence to publish, supplementary material, colour artwork, and a lay summary for promotional purposes. Final accept After final checking in the editorial office, acceptance is confirmed and the paper is forwarded to the publishers for publication. Authors can track their papers through the different stages of final production via the publisher’s author services.

Copyright © 2011-2017 Universe Scientific Publishing. All rights reserved