Submissions

Author Guidelines

Thank you for considering publishing in the diamond open access Health Sciences Libraries Journal. Submissions can be made on topics that are of potential interest to health librarians. This may include themes such as literature searching, user experience, service evaluation, research and data support and access, mobilising evidence, technology and system design, ethical considerations, project and management skills and continuing professional development. We also welcome book, podcast, website reviews and recommendations, product reviews and event reports. 

Deadlines: We aim to publish two issues each year. 

• The deadline for general submissions is 01 April (for summer) or 01 October (for winter).
• The deadline for research articles is 10 January (for summer) or 10 July (for winter). 

Submissions should not be published elsewhere or be under consideration by another publication. Note, the decision to accept an article for publication lies with the editors and is final. You can view all of our policies (including conflict of interest, privacy, quality and integrity, authorship and contributorship, and use of AI) on our ‘about’ page. Please contact us at hslj.hslg@gmail.com with queries (include ‘HSLJ query’ in the email subject).

We encourage authors to write in a way that most easily engages our readers, using plain, jargon-free language. We also recommend you use the active, first-person perspective (for example, 'We conducted a survey' rather than 'a survey was conducted by the authors'). Avoid use of stigmatising or exclusionary words and phrases. The APA has a guide to bias free language that may be helpful.

Recurring sections include: 

• Research articles – involving original research or evaluation. These will be peer reviewed. Main text word count: 2,500 – 4,000 words (this excludes references, appendices, structured abstract of 200 – 300 words, keywords). See also, Note for submission of research articles for peer review, below.
• Practice-based articles – such as: case studies, project reports, commentaries, dissertation summaries. Main text word count: 1,000 – 3,000 words (this excludes references, appendices, abstract of 100 – 300 words, keywords).
  Note: if you are including results of research or evaluation projects (for example, surveys) as part of a practice-based article, please ensure you include all relevant details, such as sampling methods, participation rates etc.
• Reports and reviews – on conferences and other events, publications, tools or products, websites or other information resources. Word count: 500 – 2,000 words.
• Regular features – articles submitted by regular contributors or on regular topics/themes of interest. For example, ‘Librarians in interesting roles’ and ‘Librarians past and present’. Word count: 500 – 2,000 words.
• Updates and editorials – from the HSLG.

ARTICLE PREPARATION AND FORMATTING GUIDELINES

General guidelines:

• Manuscripts should be submitted in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file formats
• Article titles should not exceed 15 words.
• Text should be 1.5-line spaced, Calibri, size 11 font.
• Irish/British spelling should be used.
• Use minimal capitalisation or contractions in your text.
• Spell out acronyms and abbreviations at their first use. Do not use full stops between letters, for example, US, PhD, PTSD. 
• Generally, spell out numbers one to nine in the text.
• Quotations of more than 50 words should be set apart from the main text and indented.

Lists
For numbered lists use Arabic numerals followed by a full stop (1. 2. 3…), for sublevels use a. b. c. (To assign sublevels for lists, use ‘change list level’, or similar, in word processing systems.)

For bulleted lists use filled/solid bullets.
If bulleted items are complete sentences, begin each item with a capital letter and finish it with a full stop. If bulleted items are words or phrases (but not complete sentences), begin each item with a lowercase letter and choose one option for punctuation: 

• For short, simple lists use no punctuation after the bulleted items (including the final one). 
• For long, complex lists insert punctuation after the bulleted items as though the bullets were not there (HSLG 2025).

Add any citation after the last item in the list.

Headings
Article headings should not use numbers and use the following formatting described. 

All headings are left aligned, Calibri, 11-point. There are four levels:

METHODS 
This is the level 1 heading, used for main section headings. It is in bold and all capitals. The text following the heading begins on the line below.

Outcome Measures
This is the level 2 heading. It is in bold, title case (capitalise all main words). The text following the heading begins on the line below.

Primary and Secondary Outcomes
This is the level 3 heading. It is in title case (capitalise all main words). The text following the heading begins on the line below.

Primary Outcomes. This is the level 4 heading. It is in bold, title case (capitalise all main words) and has a full stop. The text following the heading begins on the same line.

__________________

Tables, figures and images:

• Tables should be fully editable (not included as an image).
• Tables, figures and images should be placed within the appropriate place in the text (rather than at the end).
• Table titles go above the table, are in bold and should be numbered sequentially (Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. …). Tables should be understandable independent of the text.
• Figure titles go above the figure, are in bold and should be numbered sequentially (Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. …). Figure elements should be clearly labelled and understandable independent of the text.
• Table and figure notes should use superscript a, b, c, rather than symbols.
• If required, the APA provides useful information about creating accessible graphs and other figures.
• All third-party images, figures etc. should be authorised for reproduction by the copyright holder and uploaded additionally as high-quality image files, with a resolution of at least 300 dpi.
• To ensure images are accessible to all readers and compliant with accessibility legislation please provide up to 100 words ALT text for images.

References and end material:

• References should be listed at the end of the article. The referencing style is APA, which is an author-date system published by the American Psychological Association: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples The APA also provides helpful advice about in-text citations. 
• Reference manager software, such as Zotero or mybib, may be useful for applying the correct style.
• Include DOIs in the bibliography. You can check if a DOI is available at doi.crossref.org/simpleTextQuery. 
• If relevant, you may include acknowledgements as a short paragraph before your references.
• Conflict of interest statement – Include a notice of any conflicts of interest, funding or activities that might be seen as influencing the article. Where there are no conflicts, a simple statement - ‘We have no known conflicts of interests to declare’ - is appropriate.
• Appendices, if relevant, should be referred to in the text and supplied as separate files. Examples of information suitable for appendices include: detailed search strategies, surveys and questionnaires, and interview questions.

Copyright:
As well as providing ALT text, authors should add these details underneath images:

1. Title: The title of the image.
2. Author: The name of the creator.
3. Source: The URL where the image is hosted if relevant.
4. License: The type of Creative Commons or other license it is available under, including a link to the relevant license. If you are the copyright owner of the image, you choose a licence and can find more information on creative commons here:  https://chooser-beta.creativecommons.org/).

Example of caption under an image: ‘Howth at sunrise’ by Amy Smith is licensed under CC0 1.0 

Summary
There are many ways of formatting texts, when in doubt, choose one approach and be consistent. Formatting or editorial changes may be made by the editor to correct errors or to ensure clarity and a consistent style for the journal. Note, the editorial team will largely be guided by the APA Style and Grammar Guidelines.

_______________________________________

SUBMISSION PROCESS
All submissions should be uploaded directly to the journal website. The primary (corresponding) author should register on the journal website. Once logged in, begin the process by clicking ‘Make a new submission’ at the top of this submissions page. Fill in all relevant fields in the form, including choosing the relevant section for your article. On receipt, an editor will review the submission to ascertain if it meets the journal criteria. We aim to respond to submissions within ten days.

As a minimum, a submission must:

• meet the scope of the journal
• contain original content and be free of plagiarism or misinformation
• apply the directions of our Policies and Author Guidelines
• abide by ethical standards and relevant laws, including copyright and GDPR (privacy regulations)

The primary (corresponding) author is responsible for obtaining consent from every author to add their details (including email and institution) to our journal submission portal and to have these details published in our journal. The editors may use these details to correspond with authors during the submission process.

We recognise that submitting items for publication can be daunting, the editorial team are happy to informally discuss by email if a submission idea meets the scope of the journal (hslj.hslg@gmail.com). 

The editors and/or reviewer may request changes to aspects of the content, formatting or writing style of submissions. Changes may be mandatory (required to be addressed before publication) or optional (at the discretion of the author). The team will engage with authors to enable publication where possible. The editors reserve the right to make final decisions about journal content.

___________________________________________________________________

Submission of research articles for peer review:  
Our aim is that articles for the research section of the journal are peer reviewed. This will be a single-anonymous review process, where the article will be assessed by (usually) one anonymous peer reviewer. Peer reviewers may be members of the editorial team, the advisory board or external experts. Please note that we have a limited cohort of potential peer reviewers. Where the editorial team cannot find a suitable reviewer for the topic in question, we will inform the author as soon as possible so they may choose to publish elsewhere or without review. An author may be asked to supply names of potential reviewers. As well as complying with the core assessment criteria listed above, all sections of articles submitted for peer review (such as methods and results) should be clear, complete and appropriate. Articles must be of sufficient quality, contain significant original content and not be concurrently submitted to another journal. Articles must also demonstrate valid and ethical research practice and data use. The reviewer will make a recommendation regarding publication of the submission, however the final decision is the responsibility of the editor/editorial team.

Peer review process – Following submission to the research section of the journal, editors review the article to ensure the content is suitable and meets the journal scope and criteria. The article will continue to the peer review process or be returned to the author either rejected or with the recommendation to revise and resubmit. Following peer review, reviewer comments are anonymously shared with the author(s) and they will make one of the following recommendations:

• accept (no revisions needed)
• accept with minor revisions
• accept with major revisions (author to revise and resubmit for further review)
• reject

Revised articles may be sent for further peer review or review by the editorial team. 

Peer review standards - what do we expect?

Peer reviewers evaluate the integrity and quality of a research article. They check that each section is clear and follows established standards. Authors may find reporting guidelines useful (see below), as they help ensure that all relevant aspects of a study are described, and may be used by reviewers. 

The purpose of the HSLJ is to aid those in the library and information sector to share knowledge that contributes to progressive and improved standards and practice. This includes enhancing our understanding of research methods and reporting; and providing a space for new and diverse voices. We would like all studies to abide by the highest quality research standards, however, we recognise that some authors will be novice researchers or be describing small, low-budget studies which, although lacking specific elements, will be of interest to our readers. We ask that authors aim for best practice, are transparent and provide clear details of their study’s limitations.

Limitations or apparent failures may be beneficial when we learn from them, share these lessons and apply them to future research. Authors may use research reporting guidelines to identify gaps and provide lessons learned. For example:

• Limitation: we had a low response rate to our survey.
• Why this matters: the small size means that we cannot generalise results to our wider population.
• In future studies we would: shorten our survey, reducing the questions to capture key points of interest; make it easier to fill in using mobile devices; make our invitation more appealing; and send an extra reminder.

Reviewers will be assessing articles for clarity, accuracy, adequacy, balance and ethical standards. Have you provided sufficient data and information to show your research is:

• Repeatable – all steps involved in the study are clearly described
• Robust – there is sufficient data and description of analysis provided to draw conclusions
• Replicable – the procedures for controls, analysis, sampling and other methods support the accuracy of results.

Research ethics should be a consideration throughout the design and conduct of research. This may include issues of consent, anonymity, fairness, transparency, diversity, use of technology and adherence to local or national standards. Where participants are involved in the research please describe how they were protected during the process (e.g. how potential risks to participants were minimised through question selection or pressure to participate was relieved through anonymisation etc.). There are numerous sources that provide information about research bias that may be useful, e.g. Scribbr.com. All authors should declare all sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest. 

Research that involves participants or data that includes personal details generally requires approval by an ethics committee prior to commencement. Research that does not usually require this approval may include clinical audits, service evaluations and quality improvement projects, and research using existing, anonymized, publicly available data. Where relevant, authors are responsible for ensuring they have sought and applied conditions of ethical approval. Articles where this is not evident may be rejected.

Note that reviewers and editors may use digital technology software (AI) to aid their work. 

Useful sources:
HSE (n.d.) What is research and Ethical approval for research in the HSE & its funded organisations and Data protection and research in health and social care. Dublin: Health Service Executive.
HQIP (2021) Guide to managing ethical issues in quality improvement or clinical audit projects. London: Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.

Examples of reporting guidelines:

Observational Epidemiology - Use STROBE for studies including:

• Cohort studies (e.g., longitudinal, prospective, and retrospective studies)
• Case-control studies (e.g., case-referent studies)
• Cross-sectional studies (e.g., transverse and prevalence studies)

 Systematic reviews:

• Systematic reviews of trials - PRISMA
• Systematic review protocols - PRISMA-P
• Meta-analyses of Observational studies - MOOSE
• For describing systematic literature searches - PRISMA Search

Other study types:

• Qualitative Research - SRQR
• Case Reports – CARE
• Economic Evaluations - CHEERS

Research standards may appear daunting but are there to ensure readers can make evidence-based decisions based on reported findings. The peer review process supports authors to produce the best possible version of their study and effectively contribute to the knowledge-base of our community.