Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The first Brazilian Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is an interdisciplinary publication sponsored by BAHIANA - School of Medicine and Public Health.

It is a full Open Access journal with the mission to foster evidence-based knowledge in the Biomedical and Life Sciences through the publication of rigorous research and concept articles.

Therefore, it will accept and publish original research focused on the critical exploration of the healthcare scientific field (specifically on the topics of publication bias, predictive values of research findings, inconsistencies in study designs and publications) and validation of clinical tools (accuracy of diagnostic / prognostic methods and efficacy / effectiveness / efficiency of therapies).

 Special Features:

  • Full open access;
  • No article processing charges;
  • No industry sponsorship of any kind;
  • Publication of noteworthy peer reviews;
  • Podcasts with editors commenting on outstanding articles or hot topics;
  • A team of associated editors for a comprehensive list of topics in evidence-based medicine.
Updated May 2021


Section Policies

Research Articles

  • Meta-science I: studies that explore different scientific fields, quantitatively and/or qualitatively describing phenomena that lead to poor research quality (http://evidencelive.org/manifesto/manifesto-events/).

  • Meta-science II: studies that test hypotheses regarding the impact of specific phenomena on quality or applicability of evidence.

  • Accuracy Studies: validation of diagnostic and prognostic methods (clinical examination, laboratory, imaging), derivation / validation of multivariate models for causality or prediction.

  • Screening Studies: studies that evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of testing procedures in asymptomatic population.

  • Therapy Studies: observational studies as hypothesis generation for efficacy, randomized clinical trials for efficacy, effectiveness studies (real world application) and cost-effectiveness studies.
Up to 5,000 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Studies reporting negative findings

This is a special section for original research focused on articles with negative findings, with the intention to counterbalance the publication bias phenomenon.

Up to 5,000 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Choosing Wisely

In order to reduce the burden of unnecessary medical tests, treatments and procedures, the Choosing Wisely initiative promotes the development of guidelines and recommendations in healthcare. In this section, articles should describe the process through which the Choosing Wisely lists were developed, present results in descriptive (preferences) and/or analytical (predictors of preferences) terms.

We also expect the manuscripts to discuss he problem of unwise expenditure of resources and how it came into attention, the current choices of conduct by the medical community so far, and what the initiative recommends based on which rationale.

Up to 5,000 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Thought Experiments

This is a section for creative but thorough and metodologically sound “thought experiments” aimed to test and/or push the boundaries of study designs, methodological approaches, clinical reasoning and paradigms in the health sciences, their interpretations and their eventual biases. The experimentation concerns content, not form. Thus, the same scientific ground rules apply:

  1. The "thought experiment" is an imaginary experiment with a scientific message implicit in its logic. In the biomedical sciences, it has been used as a satirical and didactical way to anchor people's minds towards better understanding of research concepts.

  2. The submissions may be structured in the form of original articles or systematic reviews encompassing the same architecture as those.

  3. Hypotheses must be tested and questions must be asked as they would be in a real-world experiment.

  4. The data collection should follow the best practices in research.

  5. The study designs must be as transparent and replicable as possible.

  6. The study designs must reflect real study designs already in use in the health sciences research community.

Up to 5,000 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Concept Articles

This is one of the main types of articles published by Evidence, a space for the authors to reflect about the scientific ecosystem, scientific integrity, principles of clinical reasoning, what evidence-based medicine is (and what it is not), in addition to summarizing knowledge about: 
  • Statistical concepts (statistical tools and predisposition to random errors);

  • Methodological concepts (systematic errors);

  • Evidence-based medicine tools (scores of critical appraisal, meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness methods, prediction tools);

  • Principles of evidence-based clinical reasoning;

  • Cognitive biases.

Up to 2,500 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Critical Appraisal of Evidence

  • Articles commenting on the quality and impact of studies published over the last 12 months.

  • Description of methods, software or other tools, following the appropriated guidelines and contributing to the evidenced-based research field.

Up to 1,500 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Systematic Reviews

This is a section for systematic reviews of papers reporting on the lastest findings in the fields of diagnosis, prognosis or therapy. 

All reviews must have been previously registered in the PROSPERO database and the PRISMA checklist must be submitted as supplementary file.

Up to 5,000 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Registered Reports

An efficient way to prevent questionable research practices such as p-hacking, HARKing, and the publication bias phenomenon is to allow for authors to pre-register their hypotheses and planned analyses in the form of Registered Reports, before the data collection takes place. Therefore, this section serves to help the readers on distinguishing a priori hypothesis testing from posthoc analysis by publishing methods and protocols. Through careful peer review, Evidence will help the authors who submit papers to this section to correct methodological flaws before they happen by assessing the experimental design prior to the data collection. 

Research protocols submitted to this section must contain introduction, methods, and, if that should be the case, any pilot experiments that motivated the research hypothesis and study design. The manuscript should remark outcome-neutral conditions for ensuring that the proposed methods are capable of testing the stated hypotheses. Sample size calculation and rigorous statistical plan of analysis must be included in the manuscript as well. 

In the submitted protocol, the following aspects are deemed essential and will be carefully assessed:

  1. Objective(s), either analytical (explicit hypothesis) or descriptive (what is to be described);

  2. Sample selection method (ethical compliance and clearance, target population, inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment procedures);

  3. Well-defined primary outcome;

  4. Well-defined secondary outcomes;

  5. Data analysis plan (primary and secondary analyses included), detailing how multiple comparisons are going to be prevented/avoided;

  6. Sample size calculation: assumptions are to be clearly presented; for an analytical study, what is the expected effect size, what is the premise behind the expected behavior of the variables (frequency in the case of categorical variables and expected standard deviation in the case of numerical).

In case of acceptance, the registered report will be published and the authors will receive a certificate of In Principle Acceptance (IPA), meaning that the journal guarantees publication of a second submission containing the full study if the authors conduct the experiment in accordance with the approved protocol. This second submission will be required to include, in the results section, the outcome of the pre-registered analyses. 

Up to 5,000 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Bridging the gap

In order to counteract the rising tide of medical misinformation and its deleterious effects on the global health and trust in science, we invite undergraduate and graduate students, researchers and professors to summarize scientific consensuses in the health sciences to society, policymakers and media outlets in this section with formal but comprehensive language to the public in general.

This section is open to submissions regarding topics such as social impact of research in the health sciences; trust in the health sciences and related fields; scientific misinformation, effective communication and dissemination strategies in the health sciences, etc.

Submissions to this section must answer the following questions: why this topic is relevant to the biomedical sciences, why and how it is relevant to society. In other words, how this research or issue affects the concerned citizens and why the consensus, strategy or practice the submission describes matters to science and society.

Up to 2,000 words in length.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to the Editor

We would like to hear from you. Would you like to offer a quick criticism or evidence-based suggestion on any of our recent publications? You are welcome to submit your comments to this section of our journal.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare applies double blind reviewing, where both the evaluator and authors remain anonymous throughout the process. Each contribution will be submitted to at least 2 (two) ad hoc reviewers.

The outcomes could be: a) approval for publication as presented in the original; b) approval for publication after improvements required by the reviewer have been implemented; c) rejection.

The authors will always be informed of the review outcome, and will promptly receive all reviewers' annotations.

If the authors decide to carry out the changes suggested by the reviewers, the amended text will be redirected to the same previous evaluators for a new assessment and/or to the scientific editors for final assessment.

Articles may be submitted in Portuguese or English. Once approved, the authors must proceed with the translation to English. 

Open Peer Review Policy:
Rewarding dedicated reviewers, fostering transparency

In order to foster critical and in-depth peer review and transparency in the health sciences research, outstanding reviews may be considered for publication after consulting with the referee who authored it and assessment by our editorial board.

In order to be eligible for publication, the review must be up to 1000 words in length, it must encompass critical discussion of the reviewed text and appraisal of its evidence (or lack thereof), remarking the quality of the study, its strenghts and limitations and its relevance to the current discussion of its subject among the scientific community. 
Thus, adding value to the reviewed work and constituting an independent text in itself, the review will be deemed eligible for publication.

Updated May 2021


Publication Frequency

Submissions accepted for publication are made available online as soon as they are copyedited and layout-edited by our editorial team, and proofread by their authors.

This process, for each accepted article, takes up to four weeks.

Every volume is closed yearly by mid-December, when the publishing cycle restarts for the next year's volume.

Updated June 2021 


Open Access Policy

The Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare provides free and immediate public access to all its contens.

It does not apply submission charges nor article processing charges whatsoever, being a scientific vehicle with the exclusive purpose of fostering the advancement of science.

By submitting an article to this journal, the authors recognize themselves as copyright holders and authorize its free use by readers. The published content herein may be, in addition to being read, downloaded, copied, distributed and printed.

The authors retain copyrights, transferring to the Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare only the right of first publication.

The Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare adopts the Creative Commons Attribution License, by which all are free to copy and redistribute the published content in any medium or format, to remix it, to transform it and to build knowledge from the aforementioned content for any purpose, including commercial purposes. The users of the content are always required to attribute credit to the original authors.

We recommend authors to deposit the final published version of their articles in institutional repositories linking to their article in the Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare.

Articles submitted for assessment and evaluation in preprint repositories may be submitted to the Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare and they will be considered original nonetheless.

Updated May 2021



Open Journal Systems supports the LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) system to ensure a secure and permanent archive for the journal. LOCKSS is open source software developed at Stanford University Library that enables libraries to preserve selected web journals by regularly polling registered journal websites for newly published content and archiving it. Each archive is continually validated against other library caches, and if content is found to be corrupted or lost, the other caches or the journal is used to restore it.


Plagiarism Screening, Self-Archiving and Preprint Policy

In order to enforce the best practices in scientific communications and to prevent copyright infringement, submitted manuscripts are screened with the Similarity Check powered by the iThenticate software before publication.

Screened manuscripts displaying high rates of similarity in the wording of the introduction, discussion and results sections with previously published original content in scientific communication venues with ISBN or ISSN without properly referencing and/or paraphrasing them will be rejected.

Deposits in institutional repositories and submissions to pre-print servers do not constitute plagiarism or self-plagiarism nor they undermine the originality of the research under evaluation for publication in our journal.

We fully support the use of pre-print servers and institutional repositories by our authors. It is our understanding that they are very useful to track the history of evaluation and development of a scientific document along with registered reports and similar practices of transparency and reproducibility.

Updated May 2021


Research Integrity

You may refer to the following pages in order to enhance the quality of your research reports:

Updated May 2021


Authorship Policy

The authors of an intellectual property are publicly responsible for its content after publication.

The authors are understood as those that participated in the conception and planning of the research project and the study design and which generated the proper enviroment and conditions for its development.

All authors must approve of the final draft of the text implying thereby that they are apt to defend the ideas presented in the text before the scientific community.

Authorship is not guaranteed by participation in data collection, research groups and laboratories, loan of materials and equipment and by statistical analysis.

The essence of a scientific article lies in the interpretation of the results, in the argumentation and in the conclusions that contribute to the scientific advancement.

Each author must objectively declare their contribution to the intellectual production and competing interests related to the research project in the proper submission forms. The Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare adopts the ICMJE recommendations regarding the definition of authorship roles.

No author will be added after submission is peer-reviewed nor after it is accepted for publication.

Updated May 2021


Sponsorship and Advertisement Policy

In order to diminish conflicts of interest, as policy, the Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare does not accept donations nor sponsorship from the industry. The journal is fully sponsored by BAHIANA - School of Medicine and Public Health.

BAHIANA is a non-profit private Health Sciences higher education institution based in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.

Notwithstanding, the researchers who are sponsored by industry are welcome to submit their research reports as long as they are methodologically sound, comply with the scope, section policies and journal mission and that the sponsorship is fully and properly disclosed according to the ICMJE recommendations on that matter.

Updated May 2021


Translation Policy

Papers may be submitted in English, Portuguese or Spanish. In case of acceptance of the submission, the authors are responsible for the translation of the manuscript to English in its final version, including biographies, list of author contributions, paragraph about competing interests, tables, figures, graphs etc. 

Authors of papers submitted in English, in case of acceptance, will be encouraged to translate their submissions to Portuguese to broaden the social impact of their papers among the Lusophone Commonwealth countries.

Updated May 2021


Versions and Retraction Policy

Suspected scientific misconduct will be assessed by the editorial board, who will follow the COPE procedures to further investigate any misconduct allegations that may arise.

In case of retraction, the journal shall abide by the ICMJE recommendations.

Corrections of accidental errors - statistical, methodological or otherwise - whenever reported by the authors themselves will be published immediately and are encouraged.

In either situation, all versions will be maintained online, properly identified as recommended by the ICMJE and linked in both directions for further assessment by the readers.

Updated May 2021