Authors’ guide

By : Global Rheumatology by PANLAR

30 November, 2023


Editorial standards
Cover sheet
Scientific Publications
Original Papers
Review Papers
Quick Update
Comments and Responses
Clinical Rounds
Special Papers
Peer Review Process
GRP Authorship Policy
Assignment of Rights
Publishing Charges for Papers
Ethical Considerations
Editorial Services


Authors guide


To submit a paper, authors must create a user account as described below.

In addition to this, we kindly request you to review editorial rules for the type of paper you wish to submit to Global Rheumatology by PANLAR (GRP).

If you require assistance, please contact us at:



Click on the following link and fill out the registration form according to the profile you wish to have on GRP:


Editorial guidelines

Prior to uploading your paper, please make sure it meets the following requirements:


  • Charts and graphs should be sent separately in an Excel file, indicating in the text of the article their location with title and source.
  • Charts and graphics shall be submitted in .PNG format.
  • Assignments, Editorial Committee approvals and informed consent shall be submitted in .pdf format.


Cover Letter

Your cover letter provides the opportunity to provide a general overview of your work to the editor. Your cover letter shall include:


  • Spanish and English titles for the paper.
  • Name of the author(s) and the following information: academic degree, institution, e-mail and ORCID link (see ORCID below).
  • A brief summary of the contribution made by the author(s) to the development of the investigation and drafting of the paper.
  • A brief statement of the purpose and focus of your investigation.
  • A statement of the novel contribution being made.
  • Why should your paper be published in this journal?
  • Describe any special consideration on its presentation, such as: documents related to you and/or your colleagues (published or under consideration); reviews prior to your submission; prior submissions; previous contacts with the journals staff. We suggest you send previous contacts with staff as they may help accelerate the review process.
  • If applicable, please send any of the following as “Supplementary files for editors only”: copies of related documents; comments by previous editors and their replies; comments by previous critics and their replies.



ORCID provides researchers with a unique identifier that may be kept throughout their career. It may be used in publications and grant applications. ORCID distinguishes between researchers with similar names and helps guarantee that publications are correctly distributed and registered. It also helps researchers fulfill financer’s open-access requirements.


Persistent identifiers such as ORCID are a material aspect of finding, linking, and navigating through vast volumes of information available. An ORCID ID will aid in the discovery of your research and publications.


To create an ORCID profile, please follow the link:


Scientific publications area



It involves the point of view over a topic that aims at stimulating thought over a subject or over research reported in the journal. It may be written by the Editor, by a member of the Editorial Committee, a reviewer or guest author. It should not exceed 1.500 words.


The editorial piece should be concise and include balanced information with the relevant perspectives on the subject without exceeding 1.500 words. It shall be duly referenced to support the stated points of view.


Original paper

It refers to a written paper. It describes the results of original research in a clear, concise, and truthful manner. It follows the following structure: Introduction, materials and methods, results, and conclusions (IMRC Format). Ideally, it doesn’t exceed 3.000 words.



  • The title should be clear, brief, concise, relevant, and attractive. Titles over 10 to 15 words are discouraged.
  • The title shall be presented in English and Spanish.
  • The summary shall be structured in IMRC Format.
  • An abstract shall be included in Spanish, English, and Portuguese (250 words max).
    1. Introduction: Describes the reasons for the investigation, previous and relevant milestones. It should clearly describe the study subject.
    2. Materials and methods: This section describes how the study was implemented and report the statistical analysis to which research was subject to.
    3. Results: This section presents evidence and describes findings.
    4. Conclusions: A section wherein research findings are discussed in an orderly fashion based on the results and within the context of previous literature on the subject.
    5. Key takeaways: A selection of key messages that indicates the contribution of the paper to current literature on the subject.
    6. Key words: A minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 key words in each language (Spanish, English, Portuguese). Please refer to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the Medicus Index at to verify English headings and to Descriptores en Ciencias de Salud (LILACS) for Spanish alternatives at
    7. Quotations: In-text quotations shall strictly comply with the Vancouver guidelines, consecutively numbered in order of appearance in the text, in Arabic numerals in brackets, and not as super or sub-indexes.
    8. Attachments: Tables, figures, charts, graphics, and other attachments may not exceed 5.  They shall include a title and indicate a source. All files should be attached in the following format.
      • For images: .tif
      • For video:
      • For audio
      • For tables and graphics: Excel
    9. Bibliographical references: All references in the paper shall be duly linked to Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo Citation Index, and other relevant bibliographical sources.


Review paper

A review paper summarizes the state of the art on a particular subject through a systematic, explicit, and replicable method. It should not exceed 5.000 words.


Submissions shall meet the requirements stated for the original papers. They should include at least 50 bibliographical references.



A mini review is a short and specific review to update concepts on the practical realities of a specialty, for ex.: Diagnostic guidelines, treatment, handling, or diagnosis of a pathology, which may be requested by the Editor or suggested by the Editorial Committee. They should not exceed 3.000 words. They should include at least 30 bibliographical references.


Comments and Answers

Letters of reply to papers published in GRP are welcome and shall be sent online through the journal website and should include support references for the comments. They should not exceed 1.000 words.


Clinical Rounds

Clinical cases are highly-valued scientific and educational reports about certain pathologies, which constitute a frequent type of medical teaching through Clinical Rounds. GRP promotes the presentation of clinical cases considered by journal editor’s useful for our readers. They shall be presented in a structured manner, including an abstract, introduction, case report, discussion and at least three key takeaways. They should not exceed 1.500 words.


Submissions shall meet the requirements stated for the original papers and should include bibliographical references to support the case.


Special papers

Papers or proposals made to the editor that do not fit into established or proposed categories may be accepted as special papers.


They should include balanced information with relevant perspectives on the topic and shall include bibliographical references to support points of view expressed.


  • Submissions shall meet the requirements stated for the original papers.


Reviewers’ guidelines


Peer review process:

All papers submitted to GRP undergo a peer review process that assesses a draft’s scientific precision, novelty, importance, and contribution to regional and global literature. Papers commissioned by the Editor or those corresponding to the magazine section will also undergo evaluation by the Editorial Board.


When appropriate, the Editor and area editors will evaluate the paper to determine scope, fit, quality, originality, interest for readers, among other characteristics. It will then be sent for peer review or rejected if it does not meet the initial filter criteria.

When the required number of reviews have been received (usually two), the editors will consider the opinions of the experts and decide to accept (with or without modifications) or reject for publication. In some cases, the participation of a third reviewer may be requested, when the Editor considers it appropriate. In other cases, additional information may also be requested from the author.


A communication will be sent out with the reviewers' suggested modifications (minor or major). When replying, the author must ensure that his/her response and the revised paper correctly address each of the points requested by the reviewers and/or editors.


The revised paper will be reevaluated by the original handling editor, who will submit the final version of the paper for publication. A communication will be sent out to review the final version of the publication.


When submitting your article, you may be asked to suggest two to three potential reviewers. Editors will not necessarily invite your suggested reviewers, but these suggestions can help speed up the peer review process. Top tips for suggesting reviewers:


  • Suggest people in your field whose review of your article you would appreciate
  • You do not need to know your suggestions personally and reviewers will not know that you suggested them.
  • Make sure that your suggestions are not current or recent colleagues of yours or your co-authors.
  • Suggest researchers who know the subject well and are willing to invest the time.
  • You may also suggest the name of one or two reviewers who for some reason you would not want under any conditions to review your article.


While our goal is to complete the peer review process as quickly as possible, please note that reviewers volunteer their time. There may be times when several reviewers are invited before the required number can be arranged, or when a reviewer fails to submit a review and the invitation process must begin again. You will be able to follow the status of the editorial process through the platform.

All articles have the dates of receipt, acceptance, and publication. The average time between receipt and publication of articles is currently 11.5 weeks.


GRP authorship policy

The policies of the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors set forth the following requirements for authorship credentials:


  • Substantial contributions to the development or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data.
  • Drafting or critically reviewing the paper for material intellectual content.
  • Definitive approval of the published version.
  • The agreement guarantees that questions related to the precision or integrity of any part of the work are researched and solved adequately.


All of the above shall be met. Each author must be able to identify the co-authors responsible for specific parts of the work. Furthermore, authors shall trust the integrity of co-author’s contributions. Any person included in the list as co-author will receive confirmation via e-mail of the paper’s submission.


Participation in the acquisition of funding, data collection or general supervision of a research team does not justify authorship. We wish all authors included in a paper guarantee authorship criteria. Likewise, we request assurances that no other person meeting the criteria has been excluded as an author.


Acknowledging contributors

All contributors that fail to meet authorship criteria shall be listed in an “Acknowledgments” section. People providing technical assistance, writing assistance or the chief of a department that provided general assistance, among others, should be included in the acknowledgements. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. Please ensure that any person included has granted permission to be listed.


Groups of people that have materially contributed to the document, but whose contributions do not justify authorship, may be included as “Collaborators”, and their contribution should be clearly stated in the contribution statement. For example, “he/she contributed as scientific advisor”, “he/she critically reviewed the study proposal”, “collected data” or “provided care for the study’s patients”.


As readers may infer contributors back data and conclusions, all persons shall provide written authorization to be included in the paper.


Group authorship

If there is a considerable number of authors, we may request confirmation that all included meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship. If so, we may suggest authors form a group and be named as such in the paper. If the list of authors includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual members that act as authors or collaborators (sometimes named “non-author contributors”) if there is a note linked to the sentence clearly indicating that individual names are in another part of the paper and if those names are authors or collaborators.


Statement of Contribution

A statement of contribution for each paper submitted is required. The statement shall describe who has contributed what to the planning, application and reports of work described in the paper. The statement shall include both authors and collaborators.


Changes in affiliation

If an author’s affiliation has changed during the course of work, the author may include his or her affiliation at the time of research (or during the major part thereof), his or her current affiliation, or both. For greater clarity, changes in affiliation may be explained in the acknowledgements section.


Changes in authorship

Any author amendments after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, removals, changes of the order of author’s names or a change in accreditation of contributions. Any change must be explained to the Editor. The Editor may contact any of the authors/collaborators to determine whether they have accepted said modification.


Deceased authors

Deceased authors considered as authors shall be included accompanied by the dagger symbol () next to their name and by an explanatory footnote that states their date of death, i.e., “† Deceased January 1, 2020”.


Assignment of rights

Download in the following link the form to be filled out, signed, scanned, and sent attached to the paper

Download here





The magazine shall have its own editorial board and papers will be peer-reviewed. The texts will be generated and/or reviewed by a journalist with experience in health communication. We shall have the support of a team of web developers for the multimedia sections with a medical editor for this area and the collaboration of the editorial board for the selection and presentation of each section.


Fees for the publication of papers

All GRP papers will be initially published under Gold Open Access format without any fees for authors. PANLAR finances the journal and will look for ethical alternative channels to sustain publication with free access and without paper processing fees for readers.


Ethical considerations


Our policy is to guarantee all papers published in GRP inform about research that is morally acceptable and that authors follow the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association. To achieve this, we aim at evaluating the ethical aspects of any paper sent that involves human participants, independently of the description tags of said work, including research, auditing and, at times, the debate.


Among the cases seen every year by the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE, in Spanish), the worst constitute fraud, plagiarism, redundant publications and undeclared conflicts of interests. However, the most common are, by far, conflicts of interest among authors.


We require that each research paper submitted includes a statement that the study obtained ethical approval (or a statement that said approval was not necessary and why), including the name(s) of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/identification of approval(s) and a statement of informed consent by participants prior to their participation.


Furthermore, we request detailed explanations of how researchers and authors have considered and justified the ethical and moral aspects of their work. If these details are not clearly stated in the draft, please explain in a cover letter, or upload it as a complementary file when submitting your paper. We would also be glad to see copies of the explanatory information provided to participants. Even if detailed information is not included in a final published version, we may make it available for reviewers and editorial committees.


Papers will be considered for publication only if they follow these guidelines:


  • They comply with international, national, and institutional guidelines for the human treatment of animals and fulfill relevant legislation.
  • They have been approved by the ethical review committee of the institution or the practice in which studies were performed (if applicable).
  • Studies involving non-human primates should prove standards meet standards for primates.
  • For studies on animals owned by the client, the study proves a high standard (better practices) of veterinary care and involves the client’s informed consent.


Prior to the paper being accepted, authors shall:


  • Confirm that all legal and ethical conditions regarding human treatment of animals described in the study have been fulfilled.
  • The approval process of the ethical review committee and the international, national, or institutional guidelines followed should be specified in the Materials or Methods section of the paper.


Editorial services


Those who do not speak English prefer to have their paper edited by a native speaker before submitting it to improve the writing, spelling, and grammar of the paper. This will allow reviewers and editors to focus on the scientific content of your paper.

Please also note that the use of our own service does not guarantee acceptance of your paper.



enviar Envía un artículo