Types of Articles

Original papers

For original papers (max. 7000 words*), the recommendations of the following authors may be observed:

  • Bobenrieth, A. (2002). Normas para revisión de artículos originales en ciencias de la salud. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 2, 509–523. https://bit.ly/3lzp1CQ
  • Hartley, J. (2012). New ways of making academic articles easier to read. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12, 143–160. https://bit.ly/2ZUgrHf
  • Willkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals. The American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604. https://bit.ly/3ry2ObZ

In original articles, authors may use checklists for specific situations:

  • CONSORT checklist and flow diagram for randomized clinical trials.
  • STARD checklist and flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy.
  • STROBE for observational epidemiological studies.
  • APA Qual for Qualitative and APA Mix for Mixed Studies.

 

Assessment instruments

Studies on measuring instruments are an original paper's subtype, and they should be divided into Study Justification, Conceptual Definition of the construct, Qualitative Construction, and evaluation of the items, Statistical analysis of the items, Internal Structure, Test Reliability, Test Validity, and Reliability. This paper subtype could follow the following recommendations:

 

  • Carretero-Dios, H., & Pérez, C. (2005). Normas para el desarrollo y revisión de estudios instrumentales. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 5, 521–551. https://bit.ly/3lBIa73
  • Carretero-Dios, H., & Pérez, C. (2007). Standards for the development and the review of instrumental studies: Considerations about test selection in psychological research. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 863–882. https://bit.ly/2ZSdMh4

 

Meta-analysis studies

Meta-analyses (max. 9000 words*) may follow the subsequent recommendations:

  • Botella, J., & Gambara, H. (2006). Doing and reporting a meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 6, 425–440. https://bit.ly/3314Vej
  • Cafri, G., & Kromrey, J. D. (2010). A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(2), 239–270. https://doi.org/bch4h5
  • Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J., & Altman, D. G. (2008). Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series (pp. 243–296). Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/b3qvfn

Regarding meta-analysis articles, the authors can use the following checklists:

  • MOOSE checklist and flow diagram for meta-analysis
  • PRISMA checklist and flow diagram for meta-analysis

 

Review studies

Review studies (max. 9000 words*) may follow the recommendations of this paper:

  • Sampaio, R. F., & Mancini, M. C. (2007). Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica [Systematic review studies: A guide for careful synthesis of the scientific evidence]. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, 11(1), 83–89. https://doi.org/drnxm5

In review articles, authors can use the following checklist:

  • PRISMA flowchart and checklist for systematic reviews

 

* These limits could be exceeded if adequately justified.