Author Guidelines

1. Journal description

Student Voices in Health and Medicine is a student-led, open access, peer-reviewed that publishes work by undergraduate students on issues relevant to health and medicine. Open to students from any discipline, the journal provides a platform to develop academic writing skills, share research and insights, and engage in scholarly discussion. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review. The journal accepts the following article types:

• Literature reviews: Summarise and evaluate existing research.
• Research articles: Present original findings.
• Protocols: Outline the planned methodology for a research project or review.
• Evidence-based opinion pieces: Offer well-supported perspectives on key issues.
• Learning development and practice (LDP) articles: Explore experiences of learning and professional development.
• Research in focus pieces: Critically engage with published research and its relevance to practice.

2. About submissions

Who can submit?

Submissions are open to undergraduate students from any discipline, provided the work relates to health or medicine. The first (or lead) author must be an undergraduate student at the time of submission. Joint submissions are welcome, and students may collaborate with peers. Supervisors or lecturers who have provided significant support, such as guidance on research design, analysis or writing, may be included as co-authors, provided their contributions meet authorship criteria. However, the submission must remain primarily student led.

Submission requirements

• All manuscripts must be original and not under review elsewhere.
• Submissions must follow the formatting and word limits outlined in the Types of Articles section.

Peer review process
All submissions undergo peer review to ensure academic quality. Authors should be prepared to revise their manuscript based on reviewer feedback. More details on the process can be found in the Peer Review Process section.

Supporting undergraduate authors
The journal encourages first-time authors to engage with academic publishing. Clear guidance is provided at each stage and editors may offer constructive feedback to help students refine their work.

3. Article Types and Structure

All submissions must follow the structural guidelines outlined below. Submissions that do not adhere to these requirements may be returned for revision before being sent for peer review.

4. Literature Reviews (up to 5,000 words)

A literature review provides a structured, critical examination of existing research on a specific topic. Reviews must follow a recognised framework, such as a systematic review, scoping review or mixed-methods review, to ensure transparency in methodology and synthesis.

Suggested structure:

1. Introduction (500 – 750 words)
• Provide background on the topic, outlining its relevance to health and medicine.
• Explain the rationale for the review, identifying gaps in existing research.
• Clearly state the aims and objectives of the review.
2. Methods (750–1,000 words)
• Identify the review type (e.g. systematic review, scoping review, mixed methods review) and justify the choice.
• Describe the search strategy, including databases searched, key terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Explain how studies were selected, appraised and synthesised.
3. Results (1,000–1,250 words)
• Present the search outcomes, including a PRISMA flow diagram if applicable.
• Summarise the critical appraisal of selected studies, using a table where appropriate.
• Describe key themes or patterns emerging from the literature, using subheadings to organise findings.
4. Discussion (1,000–1,500 words)
• Interpret key findings in the context of existing literature.
• Discuss implications for practice, education or policy.
• Identify gaps in knowledge and suggest areas for future research.
• Acknowledge strengths and limitations of the review (as a separate subheading).
5. Conclusion (250–500 words)
• Summarise the main findings of the review.
• Reinforce the significance of the findings for healthcare practice, education or research.
6. References
• List all sources cited in the review, formatted according to Harvard referencing style.

5. Research Articles (up to 5,000 words)

Research articles report on original student-led studies using appropriate research methodologies. Ethical approval must be obtained where necessary.

Suggested structure:

1. Introduction (500-750 words)
• Provide background and context for the study.
• Identify the research gap and rationale for the study.
• Clearly state the aims and objectives.
2. Methods (750–1,000 words)
• Describe the study design (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods).
• Provide details on the setting, participants, recruitment and data collection.
• Outline data analysis methods, including software used if applicable.
• Explain ethical considerations, including approval details.
3. Results (1,000–1,250 words)
• Present key findings using appropriate tables, figures or qualitative themes.
• Quantitative studies should include statistical analysis.
• Qualitative studies should provide rich descriptions supported by excerpts.
4. Discussion (1,000–1,500 words)
• Interpret findings in relation to existing literature.
• Discuss implications for practice, education or policy.
• Address limitations and suggest areas for future research.
5. Conclusion (250–500 words)
• Summarise main findings and their significance.
6. References
• List all cited sources in Harvard style.

6. Protocols (up to 2,000 words)

A protocol is a structured document that outlines the methodology for a planned research project or systematic or scoping review. It ensures transparency, reproducibility and methodological rigour. Protocols are assessed for feasibility, coherence and adherence to ethical and methodological standards.

Suggested structure

Introduction (500–600 words)

• Explain the background and the issue the project intends to address.
• Include a brief literature review to establish the project's relevance and necessity.
• Clearly state the research objectives or research questions.

Review protocols (700–800 words)

• Design: Specify the type of review (e.g., systematic, scoping or integrative).
• Search strategy: Outline databases, search terms and inclusion or exclusion criteria.
• Data extraction: Describe what data will be extracted from included studies.
• Quality appraisal: Detail how included studies will be assessed for bias or quality.
• Data synthesis: Explain how findings will be summarised (e.g., narrative synthesis or meta-analysis).

Research project or quality improvement protocols (700–800 words)

• Design: Outline the research design (qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods).
• Participants: Describe recruitment strategies, eligibility criteria and participant characteristics.
• Data collection: Explain how data will be gathered (e.g., surveys, interviews or observations).
• Data analysis: Describe the planned analysis approach, including any software to be used.
• Ethical considerations: Discuss ethical approvals, participant consent and data management.

Expected outcomes (300–400 words)

• Anticipated findings and their relevance to health or social care.
• Expected impact on practice, policy, education or future research.

References

• List all sources cited, formatted in Harvard style.

7. Evidence-Based Opinion Pieces (up to 2,000 words)

These pieces present a well-supported argument on a key issue in health or medicine, engaging critically with existing research.

Suggested structure:

1. Introduction (500–700 words)
• Introduce the topic and its relevance to health or medicine.
• State the argument or thesis.
• Provide context, including background information and relevant developments.
2. Evidence and analysis (900 words)
• Structure the argument into key themes with clear subheadings.
• Discuss findings from key studies, reports and sources.
• Critically evaluate the strength and reliability of the evidence.
• Consider alternative perspectives and address potential counterarguments.
3. Discussion and implications (300 words)
• Summarise how the evidence supports the argument.
• Discuss implications for practice, policy or further research.
4. Conclusion (100 words)
• Reinforce the key takeaways and significance of the argument.
5. References
• List all cited sources in Harvard style.

8. Learning, Development and Practice Articles (up to 3,000 words)

LDP articles provide a structured discussion on a teaching or professional development topic in health or medicine. They should offer evidence-based insights, discuss best practices and explore practical applications relevant to students and professionals.

Suggested structure:

1. Introduction (400–600 words)
• Introduce the topic and explain its relevance to health, medicine or professional development.
• Identify the specific challenge, gap or issue being addressed.
• Outline the purpose of the article and its intended audience.
2. Background and evidence base (600–800 words)
• Summarise key research, theories or frameworks related to the topic.
• Discuss relevant policies, guidelines or best practices.
• Highlight gaps or areas for development in current knowledge or practice.
3. Application to practice (800–1,000 words)
• Explain how the topic applies to real-world healthcare or educational settings.
• Provide examples, case studies or practical strategies.
• Discuss barriers, challenges and solutions in implementing best practices.
4. Recommendations and future directions (400 words)
• Offer practical guidance for students, educators or healthcare professionals.
• Suggest strategies for improving learning, development or professional practice.
• Identify areas for further research or professional growth.
5. Conclusion (100–200 words)
• Summarise the key takeaways and their significance for practice or education.
6. References
• List all sources cited in Harvard style.

9. Research in Focus (up to 2,000 words)

A critical engagement with a published research paper, summarising its key findings, evaluating its strengths and limitations and discussing its relevance to practice.

Suggested structure:

1. Introduction (300–500 words)
• Introduce the selected paper and explain its significance.
• Outline its relevance to healthcare practice, education or policy.
2. Summary of the paper (500 words)
• Summarise the key points of the research article, including objectives, methods, findings and conclusions.
3. Critical appraisal (700 words)
• Assess the strengths and limitations of the paper’s methodology and findings.
• Discuss potential biases, gaps or limitations in the research.
• Compare it with other relevant studies.
4. Implications for practice (300 words)
• Reflect on how the findings of the paper might influence healthcare practice, education or policy.
• Consider how this research might shape your own understanding or future practice.
5. Conclusion (200 words)
• Summarise key takeaways from your analysis.
• Reinforce the relevance of the study’s findings to the wider field of health and medicine.
6. References
• List all sources, including the paper being reviewed, in Harvard style.

4. Preparing Your Manuscript

All submissions must follow the formatting and structuring requirements outlined below. Manuscripts that do not adhere to these guidelines may be returned for revision before being considered for peer review.

General Formatting

• File format: Submit your manuscript as a Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx).
• Font: Use a standard, readable font e.g. Calibri, Aptos, Times New Roman, size 12.
• Spacing: Use double-spacing throughout, including references.

Required Sections

Each submission must include the following sections in this order:

1. Title Page
• Full manuscript title (concise and descriptive).
• Full names of all authors with affiliations.
• Corresponding author's email address.
• The type of article (literature review, research article, evidence-based opinion piece, learning, development and practice article or research in focus).
• Word count for the main text (excluding abstract, references, tables and figures).
2. Abstract
• Summarises the manuscript’s aims, methods, key findings and conclusions.
• Literature reviews and research articles must use a structured abstract with the headings: Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions.
• Other article types should use an unstructured abstract (a single paragraph without headings).
• Abstracts should not exceed 300 words and must not contain references.
• Keywords: List up to five keywords beneath the abstract.
3. Main Text
• Must follow the structuring guidelines for the chosen article type (see Section 3).
• Word limits must be adhered to (excluding abstract, references, tables and figures).
4. References
• Use Harvard referencing style.
• Ensure all citations in the text appear in the reference list and vice versa.
5. Tables and Figures
• Place tables and figures within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
• Number tables and figures sequentially in the order they appear in the text.
• Provide clear, concise titles and ensure they are referenced in the main text (e.g., "see Table 1").

Originality and Ethical Considerations

All submissions must be the original work of the authors and must not have been published or be under review elsewhere.

• Plagiarism: The use of another person’s ideas, text, or work without proper attribution is strictly prohibited. All submissions will be checked for plagiarism, and any manuscript found to contain plagiarised content may be rejected.
• Self-plagiarism: Authors must not reuse substantial portions of their own previously submitted or published work without proper citation and justification.
• AI-assisted writing: If generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) have been used in the preparation of a manuscript, their role must be clearly disclosed in the methods or acknowledgements section. AI-generated text cannot be included as original authorship. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their submission.
• Referencing: All sources must be cited using Harvard referencing style, and direct quotes must be appropriately attributed.

Failure to comply with these policies may result in rejection of the manuscript.

5. Submission Process

Before submitting a manuscript, authors must ensure their work aligns with the journal’s aims and scope. Only submissions that meet these criteria and demonstrate sufficient academic quality will proceed to peer review.

Student Voices in Health and Medicine follows best practices for scholarly publishing. Submission requirements adhere to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The journal’s approach to publication ethics and editorial policies aligns with guidance from the Council of Science Editors (CSE) White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.

Before Submitting

Authors should:

• Review the journal’s aims and scope to confirm their manuscript is suitable.
• Carefully follow the submission guidelines outlined in Sections 3 and 4.
• Ensure their work meets ICMJE and CSE best practices, including originality, ethical standards and proper citation of sources.
• Complete the submission checklist to verify that all required sections are included.
• Be aware that manuscripts that do not follow these guidelines may be returned for revision before being considered for peer review.

How to Submit

1. Prepare your manuscript according to the journal’s guidelines.
2. Visit the Submit Manuscript page to upload your submission via Open Journal Systems (OJS).
3. Receive confirmation—an acknowledgement email will be sent once the submission is received.

For step-by-step instructions on how to submit via OJS, refer to the Submission Instructions & Process page.

Contact Information

For any submission-related inquiries, please contact:

Student Voices in Health and Medicine Editorial Office
Nutmeg Hallett and Lauren Philp-von-Woyna (Editors-in-Chief)
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT
✉ studentvoices-journal@contacts.bham.ac.uk

6. Peer Review Process

All submissions to Student Voices in Health and Medicine undergo peer review to ensure academic quality and relevance.

We aim to complete each stage of the peer review process within the timelines stated below, but these deadlines cannot be guaranteed and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the volume of submissions. The editorial team is committed to supporting undergraduate authors through the revision process and will provide constructive feedback to help improve submissions wherever possible.

1. Editorial review (Within 20 working days)

After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial review to check:

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines
• Adherence to ethical policies (e.g., plagiarism, AI use, originality)

Outcome:

• If the submission meets requirements, it is sent for peer review.
• If the submission does not meet requirements, the author is notified and asked to revise and resubmit.
• If the submission is unsuitable for the journal, it may be rejected at this stage.

2. Peer Review (Within 20 Working Days)

Submissions that pass editorial review are assigned to two reviewers:

• One student reviewer (undergraduate with relevant expertise and peer review training)
• One faculty reviewer (academic or professional with expertise in the subject area)

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:
✔️ Clarity and structure
✔️ Accuracy of content and argumentation
✔️ Use of evidence and references
✔️ Contribution to the field

Outcome:
Authors will receive one of the following decisions:

• Accepted – No changes needed.
• Revisions requested – The submission is suitable for publication but requires improvements (e.g., clarifying arguments, strengthening evidence, restructuring sections or addressing gaps). Authors will be given 5–20 working days to make changes, depending on the extent of revisions needed.
• Rejected – If a submission is not suitable for the journal, or if the requested revisions are not addressed, it may be rejected. However, we aim to work collaboratively with authors to avoid rejection at this stage whenever possible.

3. Revising Your Manuscript (Within 5 - 20 Working Days)

If revisions are required, authors must:

• Address all reviewer comments in the revised manuscript.
• Submit a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.
• Resubmit through Open Journal Systems (OJS) for further review.

Outcome:

• If the changes meet expectations, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
• If further revisions are needed, the author will receive additional feedback.
• If the manuscript still does not meet requirements, it may be rejected. However, the editorial team will make every effort to work with authors to improve their work before this happens.

4. Final Proofreading and Publication

Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes proofreading and formatting. Authors will be sent a final proof for approval before publication.