Submissions

PRAXIS publishes original and previously unpublished research that contributes relevant knowledge to the health sciences, clinical practice, public health, education, health management, patient safety, innovation and health policy.

Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies are accepted, including observational, experimental and quasi-experimental studies, methodological research, implementation studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, instrument validation studies and other empirical research consistent with the journal's focus and scope.

1. Title in Spanish and English.
2. Structured abstract and resumen.
3. Keywords and palabras clave.
4. Introduction.
5. Objective or objectives.
6. Methods.
7. Results.
8. Discussion.
9. Limitations.
10. Conclusions.
11. Implications for practice, education, management, policy or research, when applicable.
12. Ethical considerations.
13. Funding.
14. Conflicts of interest.
15. Author contributions.
16. Data availability, when applicable.
17. Declaration regarding the use of artificial intelligence, when applicable.
18. References.
19. Tables and figures.

The methods section must clearly identify the study design, setting and period, population, eligibility criteria, sampling procedure, sample size or its justification, variables, instruments, data collection procedures and methods of analysis.

When applicable, authors must describe the strategies used to control or acknowledge potential sources of bias, the handling of missing data, and issues related to validity, reliability or methodological rigor.

Observational studies: STROBE.
Randomized clinical trials: CONSORT 2025.
Quasi-experimental studies: TREND, when applicable.
Qualitative research: COREQ or SRQR.
Diagnostic accuracy studies: STARD.
Description of interventions: TIDieR, when applicable.
Other designs: the relevant international reporting guideline.

Research involving human participants must identify the ethics committee or competent authority, the institution, the approval code or number, and the informed-consent process, when applicable.

Clinical trials must have a public prospective registration and report the name of the registry and its corresponding identifier.

References must follow Vancouver style and be numbered consecutively according to their first appearance in the text. At least 60% should correspond to publications from the previous five years, calculated from the year of manuscript submission.

Earlier references may be used when they concern seminal or foundational works, original theories, measurement instruments, instrument development or validation studies, current legislation, technical standards, methodological guidelines, official documents, international declarations or consensus statements, and other classical sources essential to justify the study design or interpret the findings.

When a DOI is available, it should preferably be included as a complete link. The use of older literature must not replace an adequate review of recent evidence.

• Anonymized main manuscript.
• Separate title page.
• Checklist for the applicable reporting guideline.
• CONSORT flow diagram, when applicable.
• Prospective clinical trial registration, when applicable.
• Ethics documentation when requested.
• Instruments, appendices or supplementary material required for evaluation.

This section publishes systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, integrative reviews, rapid reviews and other evidence syntheses related to the health sciences. The type of review must be explicitly identified in the title, abstract and methods.

1. Title in Spanish and English.
2. Resumen and abstract.
3. Palabras clave and keywords.
4. Introduction.
5. Objective or review question.
6. Methods.
7. Protocol and registration.
8. Eligibility criteria.
9. Information sources.
10. Search strategy.
11. Selection process.
12. Data extraction.
13. Critical appraisal or risk of bias.
14. Synthesis method.
15. Results.
16. Discussion.
17. Limitations.
18. Conclusions.
19. Final declarations.
20. References.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must comply with PRISMA 2020 and include the corresponding checklist and flow diagram. Specific PRISMA extensions must be used when applicable.

Eligible systematic reviews must report prospective registration in PROSPERO or another appropriate public platform, including the corresponding registration number.

Randomized trials: RoB 2.
Non-randomized studies of interventions: ROBINS-I.
Studies of exposures: ROBINS-E.
Diagnostic accuracy: QUADAS-3 or QUADAS-C, when applicable.
Prediction models: PROBAST.
Reviews used as evidence: ROBIS or AMSTAR 2.
Missing evidence in meta-analysis: ROB-ME.
Other designs: JBI Critical Appraisal Tools, when methodologically appropriate.

Assessments must be documented by domain. Appraisal tools must not be converted into arbitrary overall percentages when the original method does not establish such a procedure.

When appropriate, the certainty of the body of evidence may be assessed using GRADE. GRADE does not replace the risk-of-bias assessment of individual studies.

PRAXIS encourages the use of recent scientific literature and, as a general criterion, seeks to ensure that at least 60% of cited sources correspond to publications from the preceding five years.

In systematic reviews, meta-analyses and other evidence syntheses, this percentage must not be used as a criterion for excluding eligible studies. Earlier publications may be included when they legitimately form part of the evidence defined by the research question, protocol, search strategy and inclusion criteria.

Earlier references may also be used when they correspond to seminal or historical studies, original methods, measurement instruments, original development or validation articles, foundational theories, methodological guidance, standards, regulatory documents, consensus statements, international declarations or publications essential to understanding the development of knowledge.

The search period must be scientifically justified and must not be artificially limited to the preceding five years solely to meet the literature-currency percentage.

• Corresponding PRISMA checklist.
• PRISMA flow diagram.
• Complete search strategy or PRISMA-S, when applicable.
• Review protocol.
• PROSPERO registration, when applicable.
• Data-extraction matrix.
• Critical-appraisal or risk-of-bias forms and matrices.
• Methodological supplementary material.
• GRADE assessment and Summary of Findings table, when applicable.

This section publishes original and previously unpublished clinical case reports that provide relevant learning for the health sciences, clinical reasoning, healthcare practice, patient safety, therapeutic or diagnostic innovation, and the analysis of complex, uncommon or particularly instructive clinical situations.

1. Title in Spanish and English.
2. Structured abstract / Resumen.
3. Keywords / Palabras clave.
4. Introduction and relevance of the case.
5. Properly anonymized patient information.
6. Clinical findings.
7. Case timeline.
8. Diagnostic assessment.
9. Therapeutic, preventive or healthcare interventions.
10. Outcomes and follow-up.
11. Discussion.
12. Patient perspective, whenever possible.
13. Conclusions and clinical learning points.
14. Consent for publication.
15. Ethical considerations.
16. Funding.
17. Conflicts of interest.
18. Author contributions.
19. Declaration of artificial intelligence use, when applicable.
20. References.

The report must clearly justify its scientific, educational or healthcare relevance. The clinical description must be accurate, chronological and sufficiently detailed to explain the diagnostic reasoning, interventions, outcomes and principal lessons derived from the case.

The manuscript must strictly protect the patient's identity, privacy and dignity. Written informed consent for publication is mandatory whenever the report includes information, photographs, clinical images or other material that could identify a person directly or indirectly.

When applicable, review or approval by an ethics committee or competent institutional authority must be reported. Ethics approval does not replace consent for publication. Names, initials, medical record numbers, unnecessary exact dates and other personal identifiers must not be included.

At least 60% of the references should correspond to publications from the previous five (5) years, calculated from the year of manuscript submission.

Earlier references may be used when they concern relevant clinical guidelines, diagnostic classifications, clinical scales, assessment instruments, diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, original instrument development or validation studies, seminal clinical literature, regulatory documents, technical standards or historical sources essential to the correct interpretation of the case.

The use of older sources must be scientifically justified and must not replace the inclusion of recent clinical evidence. References must follow Vancouver style and, when a DOI is available, it should preferably be included as a complete link.

• Anonymized main manuscript.
• Separate title page.
• Completed CARE checklist.
• Written informed consent for publication, when applicable.
• Authorizations for images or identifiable material.
• Additional ethics documentation when requested.
• Supplementary clinical material required for evaluation.

This section publishes critical, conceptual, theoretical, philosophical, epistemological, bioethical, historical or interdisciplinary scientific essays on relevant issues in research, clinical practice, education, public health, health management, health policy and the health sciences.

The manuscript must present a clearly identifiable thesis or position, develop a logical argument supported by verifiable evidence, and offer an original interpretation, conceptual synthesis or intellectual contribution. Merely descriptive texts, unsupported opinions and narrative reviews presented as essays will not be accepted.

1. Title in Spanish and English.
2. Abstract / Resumen.
3. Keywords / Palabras clave.
4. Introduction and definition of the problem.
5. Thesis or argumentative position.
6. Development organized by thematic axes.
7. Critical analysis of the evidence.
8. Consideration of alternative perspectives, controversies or limitations.
9. Implications for research, practice, education, management or health policy.
10. Conclusions.
11. Funding.
12. Conflicts of interest.
13. Author contributions.
14. Declaration of artificial intelligence use, when applicable.
15. References.

Evaluation will consider the clarity and originality of the thesis, coherence of reasoning, depth of analysis, quality and currency of sources, critical capacity, relevance to the health sciences, and consistency among the arguments, implications and conclusions.

The essay must clearly distinguish documented facts, the authors' interpretations and proposed ideas. Scientific, regulatory or historical claims must be supported by verifiable sources.

As a general criterion, at least 60% of references should correspond to publications from the previous five (5) years, calculated from the year of manuscript submission.

Earlier publications may be used when they concern classical philosophical works, foundational theories, original conceptual models, seminal epistemological works, historical texts, fundamental bioethical documents, legislation, standards, international declarations, consensus statements, original instruments or authors essential to constructing the theoretical or interdisciplinary argument.

Classical sources should be used for their conceptual or historical value and, whenever possible, supplemented with contemporary scientific literature. References must follow Vancouver style and, when a DOI is available, it should preferably be included as a complete link.

• Anonymized main manuscript.
• Separate title page.
• Author contribution statement.
• Funding statement.
• Conflict-of-interest statement.
• Declaration of artificial intelligence use, when applicable.
• Reproduction permissions and supplementary material, when necessary.

This section receives brief communications intended to comment on, complement, question or scientifically discuss articles published by PRAXIS, as well as relevant and current issues related to research, clinical practice, education, public health, health management, health policy and the health sciences.

Letters must present clear, concise, evidence-informed and respectful scholarly arguments. Communications based exclusively on personal opinions, unverifiable claims or personal attacks, as well as manuscripts whose content and methods correspond to another journal section, will not be accepted.

1. Brief and specific title.
2. Identification of the issue or article being discussed.
3. Concise argumentative development.
4. Conclusion or principal message.
5. Conflict-of-interest statement.
6. Funding, when applicable.
7. Author contributions.
8. Declaration of artificial intelligence use, when applicable.
9. References.

When a letter refers directly to an article published by PRAXIS, the article must be clearly identified and cited among the first references. The Editorial Board may forward the letter to the authors of the article under discussion and offer them an opportunity to respond. When appropriate, the letter and response may be published together.

Acceptance of a letter or response does not imply that PRAXIS endorses the views expressed. The Editorial Board may make stylistic corrections that do not alter the meaning of the text and may request revisions before reaching a decision.

As a general criterion, at least 60% of references should correspond to publications from the previous five (5) years, calculated from the year of submission.

Earlier references may be used when the letter specifically comments on an older publication, discusses a historical scientific debate, analyzes a classical or foundational theory, refers to legal or regulatory documents, compares historical changes in the evidence, or cites the original publication that gave rise to the issue under discussion.

When the article discussed in the letter is more than five years old, its citation remains valid regardless of the currency criterion. References must follow Vancouver style and, when a DOI is available, it should preferably be included as a complete link.

• Main manuscript.
• Title page.
• Conflict-of-interest statement.
• Funding statement, when applicable.
• Author contribution statement.
• Declaration of artificial intelligence use, when applicable.
• Authorization to reproduce protected material, when necessary.