Sections

The characteristics of each section of the Revista Argentina de Salud Pública are mentioned below. We recommend you to read them carefully before submitting your article to the journal.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES
REVIEWS
HEALTH INTERVENTIONS
SITUATION ROOM
MILESTONES AND KEY PLAYERS
EDITORIAL
SALUD INVESTIGA

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

This section includes original and unpublished research articles that contribute new knowledge about a clinical or Public Health question, from a clinical or Health Science perspective.

In addition, articles about social studies with an interdisciplinary approach will be received, focused on how the pandemic and/or its responses are experienced and perceived in particular contexts and social groups.

Specifications
Type: original and unpublished articles (except in certain preprints repositories).

Section: open, external contributions are received.

Letter to the Editor: the manuscript must be submitted together with a Letter to the Editor with the data of the corresponding author, according to the model available at: https://rasp.msal.gov.ar/index.php/rasp/carta_editor

Body of the article

  • Extension: 23 000 characters including spaces (excluding front page, abstract and bibliographic references).
  • Structure:

Introduction

It is advisable to submit the background, the nature, the reason and the relevance of the issue or phenomenon under study.

For qualitative studies, it is advisable to include, with subtitles, the theoretical or conceptual framework of the study and explain how authors position it within previous knowledge. The introduction must also include the purpose, goals and hypotheses or assumptions of the work.

Methods

It must include the following information, in a precise and clear way:

  • Rationale for the design chosen.
  • Description of target audience, the units of analysis and the screening method, mentioning inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is advisable to give a brief description of the population from which the units were selected as well as the study setting.
  • Detail of variables and/or dimensions under study and how they were operationalized.
  • Description of the technique, the instruments and/or procedures to gather the information, including references, background, description of use or application, scope and limitations, advantages and disadvantages, and reason for the choice, particularly in the case of innovative procedures or instruments. The medications, chemical substances, dose and routes of administration used, if applicable, must be described.
  • Data analysis: statistical tests, indicators of error or uncertainty measures (confidence intervals) and parameters used for data analysis must be described. It is also required to define the statistical terms, abbreviations and symbols used, as well as to describe the software used.
  • It should be drafted in past tense, since it describes methodologies already chosen.
  • Ethical Issues: indicate a) whether the study was approved by a health research ethics committee, b) whether informed consent and/or assent was obtained, and, c) if Law 25326 of Personal Data Protection was complied with. If compliance with any of these items is not applicable, it should be justified.

Results

This section presents the results obtained in the research, with a logical sequence in the text and the tables or figures. The Vancouver Standards recommend to start with the most important findings, avoiding information duplication between tables or graphs and text. The most important aspects of the observations should be highlighted. All information considered secondary can be presented in an annex, in order to enable smooth reading. It should be written in past tense, since the findings made are described.

Discussion

This section describes the interpretation of data and the conclusions derived from them, specifying their relationship with the objectives.

The conclusions should be directly related to the data obtained and statements not deriving directly from them should be avoided.

It is advisable to present the most important findings and provide possible explanations for them, showing the scope and limitations of those explanations and comparing these results with those obtained in other similar studies.

Note: in the subsections following the Discussion, the author is expected to outline the implications of the results of his/her research in relation to all or some of the aspects detailed below.

Relevance for policies and health interventions

This is the set of recommendations emerging from the research results and which could improve health practices, interventions and policies. The limits to the generalizability of results should be considered according to different sociocultural contexts.

Relevance for the training of health human resources

This is a discussion about how the most important concepts and results of the article can be effectively imparted or transmitted in the relevant settings, such as public health schools, academic institutions or scientific societies, health services, etc.

Relevance for health research

This is a proposal of additional research that could complement the findings obtained, which implies that other researchers could contact the corresponding author to suggest collaborative work.

Bibliographic references: maximum extension of up to 5 000 characters (including spaces); Arabic and correlative numbering, using the Vancouver style (Refer to item 3.3 in Editorial Standards).
Graphics: up to a total of 5 will be received, including tables, graphs, figures and/or photographs. They should be submitted as a separate document. For their elaboration, refer to item 4 in Editorial Standards.

Review policy: the articles submitted for publication in this section will be subject to external peer review. The review process can be consulted here.

The estimated average time for the publication of articles in this section in the regular edition of RASP is 6 months, always calculated from the date of receipt of the manuscript.

Note: for the drafting of original articles based on qualitative research, the Editorial Board recommends to comply with the indications provided in the material available in: http://www.rasp.msal.gov.ar/pdf/Guia-AO-cualitativos.pdf

 

REVIEWS

The types of works admitted for this section are:

  1. a) Narrative or descriptive reviews;
  2. b) Systematic reviews;
  3. c) Meta-analyses; and
  4. d) Health technology assessments (HTA) and rapid HTA reports.

 

  1. a) Narrative or descriptive review: literature review aimed at the identification, analysis, assessment and interpretation of the body of knowledge, advances or state of the art on a Public Health topic, preferably from the national setting.
  2. b)Systematic review: summary of evidence identifying, assessing and summarizing studies to respond to a specific clinical question. It must follow a standardized and replicable protocol that includes the decision-making process determining the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study.
  3. c) Meta-analysis:summary of results of independent studies using statistical methods in order to provide estimations of the health care effect more accurate than those derived from individual studies included in a review.
  4. d)Health technology assessment (HTA) and rapid HTA reports:this is a structured, understandable document based on the best available evidence, elaborated with an explicit and reproducible methodology that answers questions related to safety, efficacy, effectiveness, usefulness, efficiency or impact of a technology within a previously defined context.

Specifications for all types of reviews (a, b, c and d)

Type: Original and unpublished articles (except in certain preprints repositories).

Section: open, external contributions are received.

Letter to the Editor: the article will be submitted together with a Letter to the Editor. The model of the letter is available here.

Front page: Refer to item 2 in Editorial Standards for details on elaboration.

Body of the article: extension up to 16 000 characters including spaces (excluding front page, abstract and bibliographic references). Refer to item 3 in Editorial Standards for details about its elaboration.

Bibliographic references: Maximum extension up to 4 000 characters including spaces, Arabic and correlative numbering, using the Vancouver style (Refer to item 3.3 in Editorial Standards)

Graphics: Quantity: up to a total of 5 including tables, graphs, figures and/or photographs. They should be submitted as a separate document. Refer to item 4 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

-a) Narrative or descriptive review:

Structure:

Abstract: the abstract of narrative or descriptive reviews that will include information regarding the topic addressed, its context, the objective/s of the review (rationale), the main results and a conclusion.

  • Introduction: according to the proposed sequence, briefly provide the following information:

1) Define the topic and provide the adequate context for literature review;
2) Justify the reasons that promoted the literature review;
3) Explain the review organization and/or sequence;
4) Indicate the reach of the review, i.e., what is and what is not included.

  • Main body of the article: report the review results according to the following sequence:

1) Organize the literature according to similar topics.
2) Provide information about the relationship between the chosen topic and the wider theme area, providing the specific approach of the review with a general view of the literature under evaluation.

  • Discussion:

1) Summarize the important aspects of the existing body of literature.
2) Assess the current status of the reviewed literature.
3) Identify significant flaws or gaps in current knowledge.
4) Outline important areas or items for future studies.

Review policies: Narrative or descriptive reviews are evaluated by an associate editor regarding their potential interest, appropriateness, originality and timeliness; if the article does not comply with these criteria, it will be rejected in limine, notifying the author/s the reasons for such decision. 

-b) Systematic reviews, c) meta-analyses, and d) rapid health technology assessment reports

Structure:

- Introduction: problem that caused the situation report and its theoretical rationale is described, as well as the report objective.
- Methods: the activities and instruments implemented to generate the report is detailed.
- Results: the most relevant data is reported.
- Discussion: the results observed are weighed, interpreted and put into perspective.

Reporting guidelines: For the elaboration of systematic reviews in particular, the RASP recommends to use the PRISMA reporting guidelines in order to ensure the quality of the report and the review process [Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/] or any other reporting guidelines the author considers appropriate for the work submitted.

Bibliographic references: Maximum extension up to 4 000 characters including spaces, with Arabic numbers in consecutive order using the Vancouver style (3.3 in Editorial Standards)

Graphics: Quantity: up to a total of 5 including tables, graphs, figures and/or photographs. They should be submitted as a separate document. Refer to item 4 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Review policies: articles submitted for publication in this section will be subject to external peer review. The review process can be consulted here.

The estimated average time for the publication of articles in this section in the regular edition of RASP is 6 months, except for narrative reviews, which take 4 months, always calculated from the date of receipt of the manuscript.

HEALTH INTERVENTIONS

Reports are published including the design, the implementation, the results or the assessment of a health intervention. A health intervention is a set of actions guided by an objective and aimed at health promotion or protection, or at preventing disease in communities or populations. These actions may include regulatory initiatives, policies, single intervention strategies, multicomponent programs or strategies to improve healthcare quality.

The sequence of events comprising a health intervention are: I) identification of a particular situation presenting one or more unwanted aspects or away from an ideal status, II) identification of a set of activities and mechanisms with proven efficacy to produce the desired effect (the ideal status mentioned in I), III) the intervention design, IV) its implementation and the observation of results, and V) the assessment of the different types of interventions.

Specifications:

Type: Original and unpublished articles.

Section: open, external contributions are received.

Letter to the Editor: the article must be submitted together with a Letter to the Editor. The model of the letter is available here.

Front Page: Refer to item 1.2 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Body of the article: the extension shall be up to 12 000 characters including spaces (excluding front page, abstract and bibliographic references). Refer to item 1.3 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

The structure of the article will include the following sections:

- Introduction: a description of the intervention issue is presented, weighing its relevance and theoretical rationale. It should also include the known evidence of the proposed intervention effect, as well as its objective and the intended results of its implementation. Likewise, the intervention objective will be explained.
- Methods: all the components of the intervention plan are explained in sequence: implemented actions, procedures and mechanisms; and the different operators involved.
- Results: they may be the intermediate or final results observed since the implementation of the intervention.
- Discussion: the results observed are weighed, interpreted and put into perspective.

Bibliographic references: Maximum extension up to 3 000 characters including spaces, with Arabic numbers in consecutive order using the Vancouver style (Refer to item 3.3 in Editorial Standards)

Graphics: Quantity: up to a total of 4 including tables, graphs, figures and/or photographs. They should be submitted as a separate document. Refer to item 4 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Review policies: Pre-evaluation. It is verified that the article submission complies with the format requirements specified in the Editorial Standars. If they are not complied with, the article will be returned to the author. Internal review. Once the formal pre-evaluation has been approved, the article will be evaluated by the Associate Editors (AE). The evaluation criteria will be as follows:

  1. Assessment of potential interest, appropriateness, originality and timeliness of the information in the article. If the article does not comply with these criteria, it will be rejected in limine, notifying the author/s the reasons for such decision.
  2. Completeness and consistency of the reports regarding linguistics, logic and methodology. Later, a report to the EB is submitted so they can issue their recommendation about the article, choosing between: a) approving it for publication; b) approving it for publication subject to amendments; or c) rejecting it for publication.

If the article is rejected for publication, a letter will be sent to the corresponding author with a summary of the reasons for such decision. The decision regarding the rejection of publication is final. 

The estimated average time for the publication of articles in this section in the regular edition of RASP is 4 months, always calculated from the date of receipt of the manuscript.

SITUATION ROOM

The reports published here show a selection of the information gathered and processed during a Health Situation Analysis, obtained from different sources.
A situation room may be established in a physical or virtual space. Two types exist: trends, identifying medium- and long-term changes from a baseline; and contingency, describing punctual phenomena in a particular context.

Specifications:

Type: Original and unpublished articles

Section: open, external contributions are received.

Letter to the Editor: the article must be submitted together with a letter to the Editor. The model of the letter is available here.

Front Page: Refer to item 2 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Body of the article: up to 12 000 characters including spaces (excluding front page, abstract and bibliographic references). Refer to item 3 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Structure of the article:  IMRyD format (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion).
Bibliographic references: Maximum extension up to 3 000 characters including spaces, with Arabic numbers in consecutive order using the Vancouver style (Refer to 3.3 in Editorial Standards)

Graphics: Quantity: up to a total of 4 including tables, graphs, figures and/or photographs. They should be submitted as a separate document. Refer to item 4 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Review policies: Pre-evaluation. It is verified that the article submission complies with the format requirements specified in the Editorial Standars. If they are not complied with, the article will be returned to the author. Internal review. Once the formal pre-evaluation has been approved, the article will be evaluated by the Associate Editors (AE). The evaluation criteria will be as follows:

  1. Assessment of potential interest, appropriateness, originality and timeliness of the information in the article. If the article does not comply with these criteria, it will be rejected in limine, notifying the author/s the reasons for such decision.
  2. Completeness and consistency of the reports regarding linguistics, logic and methodology. Later, a report to the EB is submitted so they can issue their recommendation about the article, choosing between: a) approving it for publication; b) approving it for publication subject to amendments; or c) rejecting it for publication.

If the article is rejected for publication a letter will be sent to the corresponding author with a summary of the reasons for such decision. The decision regarding the rejection of publication is final. 

The estimated average time for the publication of articles in this section in the regular edition of RASP is 4 months, always calculated from the date of receipt of the manuscript.

MILESTONES AND KEY PLAYERS

This section describes facts and personalities considered crucial for the history of the Public Health in Argentina and worldwide.

Specifications

Type: Original and unpublished articles

Section: open, external contributions are received.

Letter to the Editor: the article must be submitted together with a Letter to the Editor. The model of the letter is available here.

Front Page: Refer to item 2 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Body of the article: extension of up to 23 000 characters including spaces (excluding front page, abstract and bibliographic references). Refer to item 3 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.

Abstract: free text up to 1500 characters including spaces.

Bibliographic references: Maximum extension up to 5 000 characters including spaces, with Arabic numbers in consecutive order using the Vancouver style (Refer to item 3.3 in Editorial Standards)

Graphics: Quantity: up to a total of 2 including tables, graphs, figures and/or photographs. They should be submitted as a separate document. Refer to item 4 in Editorial Standards for elaboration.
Review policies: the articles of this section are reviewed by the Editorial Board of the RASP.

The estimated average time for publication of articles in this section in the regular issue of RASP is 3 months, calculated from the date of receipt of the manuscript.

EDITORIAL

This section will include articles expressing current evidence-based opinions or perspectives of researchers or experts in a particular area of knowledge. 

The RASP Editorial Board will commission a particular specialist the submission of works related to an original article approved for publication or already published, selected due to some aspect of interest. The Editorial Board will elaborate an analysis of the article, will put it into the perspective of the existing knowledge so far, and will issue the conclusions regarding its significance for Public Health.

Specifications

Section: contributions are received by invitation from the Editorial Board.
Body of the article: free text with a maximum extension of 10 000 characters including spaces (excluding front page, abstract and bibliographic references).

Abstract: free text of up to 1500 characters including spaces.
Bibliographic references: maximum extension of up to 3 000 characters (including spaces); with Arabic numbers in consecutive order using the Vancouver style (Refer to item 3.3 in Editorial standards).
Graphics: up to 3 in total will be received including tables, graphs, figures and/or photographs. They should be submitted as a separate document. Refer to item 4 in Editorial Standards for elaboration. 
Review policies: the Editorial Board will assign it to an Associate Editor.

The estimated average time for the publication of articles in this section in the regular edition of RASP is 4 months, always calculated from the date of receipt of the manuscript.

SALUD INVESTIGA

Section: closed, no external contributions are received.

This section publishes articles about different aspects of health research management conducted by the Department of Health Research of the National Ministry of Health.

 Last update: 05/10/2022