In this section you will find general information about the SUMMA Medical and Health Sciences journal, including its mission and editorial focus, target audience, access policies, licensing, publication fees, and the principles that guide its practices, reinforcing its commitment to scientific quality and inclusion in the field of health.
SUMMA Medical and Health Sciences (SMHS) is committed to fostering scientific culture in the medical and health fields through the publication of high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge across a broad range of subtopics, including, but not limited to:
The journal welcomes contributions from authors of any nationality and seeks to broaden the representation of underrepresented topics and populations in the international medical literature.
Works published by SMHS are intended for researchers, health professionals, teaching and research institutions, in Brazil and abroad, and anyone interested in the subject who wishes to stay up to date with the latest advances in the medical and health sciences.
Physicians and researchers working in the journal's areas of coverage (1.1) who are interested in publishing in a high-quality journal, with a rigorous and constructive editorial process committed to contributing to the high standard of the articles it publishes, are invited to submit their work to SMHS.
New researchers seeking their first academic publication are also encouraged to submit their research to SMHS. Read our New Researcher Incentive Program.
Annual volume in continuous publication.
All manuscripts submitted to SMHS undergo, without exception, double-blind peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept mutually confidential throughout the evaluation. Review is conducted by experts external to the authors' institution, with recognized qualifications in the journal's fields of coverage.
The final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' reports. In the event of divergent reports, the Editor-in-Chief may call on a third reviewer. Supplementary material submitted with the manuscript is subject to the same peer review process.
Reviews are not published alongside the articles, and reviewers remain anonymous.
In the event of a delay in the review, the authors will be notified, with an indication of the reason, and may choose to withdraw the manuscript.
SMHS does not charge a submission fee or an article processing charge (APC); there is no cost to authors whatsoever.
SMHS is a Diamond Open Access journal, with no fee for authors or readers. All content published in SMHS is freely and openly accessible.
Authors retain the copyright to their work and grant SMHS the right of first publication.
SMHS recognizes preprint deposit as a legitimate part of scientific communication and does not consider it prior publication for purposes of originality. Manuscripts that have been deposited as preprints on a recognized server (such as SciELO Preprints, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Research Square, or Preprints.org) may be submitted to the journal in the usual way, provided that the authors report the corresponding link and DOI through the Preprint Declaration (3.3.3).
Prior availability as a preprint does not constitute a violation of the Declaration of Originality (3.3.2), but must be transparently disclosed.
SMHS authorizes self-archiving exclusively after the formal publication of the article by the journal. From that date, authors may deposit the final published version (version of record) in institutional, subject-based, or open-access repositories of their choice, on personal or academic pages, and in scientific sharing networks, provided that:
A preprint deposited prior to submission remains available on its respective server under the responsibility of the authors and the repository, and is not subject to this restriction, since its publication predates SUMMA's editorial process.
SMHS adopts active measures to ensure the permanent preservation of its content. The journal participates in the PKP PN (Public Knowledge Project Preservation Network), a distributed digital preservation service registered with the Keepers Registry (https://keepers.issn.org), which ensures the archiving of all published articles independently of the journal's platform. SMHS also keeps its output preserved in the international LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) and CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS) networks, which guarantee distributed, permanent copies of the published content, independently of the journal's platform. See the LOCKSS and CLOCKSS manifests.
All content published in SMHS is licensed under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0), which allows you to:
To do so, you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You must do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
You do not have to comply with the license terms for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights, such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights, may limit how you use the material.
The names and addresses provided to this journal will be used exclusively for the services rendered by this publication and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any third party.
SMHS is continuously committed to promoting the principles of diversity, equity, equality, and accessibility, and is dedicated to creating an inclusive and equitable culture in which every voice is welcomed, heard, and difference is celebrated.
SMHS monitors the composition of its Editorial Board's membership annually with respect to institutional and geographic distribution, publishing a summary of these indicators as part of its commitment to transparency and equity in the editorial process.
Members of the SMHS Editorial Board serve renewable two-year terms. The Board's composition is periodically reviewed by the Editors-in-Chief, who exercise the option to renew members' terms.
The average time between submission and the first editorial decision (acceptance, rejection, or a request for revision) is approximately [X] weeks. This and other editorial performance indicators are reviewed periodically by the editorial team and are available on our metrics page.
In this section you will find information on the types of manuscripts accepted by SUMMA Medical and Health Science, along with their respective structures, requirements, and required documentation.
Original Research constitutes the journal's main submission category, comprising primary studies resulting from direct scientific investigation based on primary or secondary data. Manuscripts in this category must follow the minimum structure described below, as well as the Specific Requirements detailed in section 2.1.1.3, applicable according to the study design (clinical trials, case reports, laboratory and bench studies, animal model studies, and epidemiological studies).
Adherence to the internationally recognized reporting guideline corresponding to the methodological design adopted is recommended — CONSORT for randomized clinical trials, STROBE for observational and epidemiological studies, or ARRIVE for animal model studies — in order to ensure methodological transparency and completeness of the scientific report.
Systematic Reviews present structured syntheses of the scientific literature on a defined topic, with or without quantitative data analysis (meta-analysis). Manuscripts in this category must follow the minimum structure described below. Adherence to the PRISMA reporting guideline (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is mandatory, including the study selection flow diagram and prior protocol registration on a recognized platform, such as PROSPERO.
Brief Communications are intended for concise reports of significant preliminary findings or relevant technical innovations whose importance justifies rapid dissemination in a condensed format. Because they encompass studies of varied designs presented in condensed form, no single reporting guideline applies; it is recommended that, proportionally to the brief format, the guideline corresponding to the underlying study design be observed (for example, CONSORT for preliminary findings from clinical trials, STROBE for observational findings, or CARE for case reports), highlighting the essential items even within the length limit.
Letters to the Editor present critical and analytical commentary on studies previously published by the journal, contributing to post-publication scientific debate. As this is a commentary genre rather than an original research report, no specific EQUATOR network reporting guideline applies; it is recommended, however, that the letter clearly identify the article being commented on (title, authors, DOI) and support its criticisms with verifiable literature or data.
SMHS requires compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki for all research involving human subjects, and with international animal welfare guidelines (including Animal Ethics Committee, CEUA, approval) for research involving animal models. The specific documentation requirements — ethical approval, registration in appropriate databases, informed consent, and other requirements by study type — are detailed in section 2.1 (Manuscript Types), according to the category of the manuscript submitted.
In addition, SMHS requires the following declarations from all authors, detailed in item 3.3:
Responsibility for authorship follows the ICMJE criteria, detailed in item 3.2 (Authorship and Responsibility).
Authors, reviewers, or readers who wish to contest an editorial decision or file a complaint should send a substantiated electronic communication to the Editor-in-Chief. Complaints will be answered within 30 business days. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is involved in the matter, the process will be conducted by another senior member of the editorial team.
SMHS follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for investigating suspected misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, and improper authorship. Suspicions may be reported to the Editor-in-Chief at any stage, including after publication. Articles with proven misconduct will be retracted in accordance with the Corrections and Retractions policy.
When there is a well-founded suspicion of misconduct, serious error, or unreliable data in a published article, and the investigation is still ongoing, SMHS may publish an Expression of Concern linked to the original article, stating the nature of the suspicion and the stage of the investigation. The notice remains in place until the investigation is concluded, at which point it will be replaced by a Correction, a Retraction, or removed, depending on the outcome. This procedure follows the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
SMHS encourages authors to make the raw data underlying their results available in public repositories (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare, OSF, DATASUS), indicating the DOI or URL in the article or as supplementary material, which must be archived together during the submission process.
The use of images, tables, text, or other third-party materials requires acknowledgment of the source and, where applicable, express authorization from the rights holder. Authors are responsible for ensuring that no intellectual property rights have been infringed in the submitted manuscript.
Scientific comments on published articles may be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Relevant comments may be published as a Letter to the Editor, subject to editorial evaluation. The authors of the article being commented on will have the right to reply, published simultaneously.
Significant errors in published articles will be corrected by means of an Erratum or Corrigendum linked to the original article. In cases of serious error or proven misconduct, the article may be retracted. The retraction will be published with an explanation of the reasons, keeping the original article accessible with a prominent indication of the retraction. These procedures follow COPE guidelines.
Generative artificial intelligence tools may not be listed as authors. The use of AI in the preparation, review, translation, or analysis of manuscripts must be declared in the body of the manuscript, in the "Use of Artificial Intelligence" section, following the model available in the Manuscript Template, identifying the tool used and its purpose.
Authors are fully responsible for content produced with the assistance of AI, including any inaccuracies. During the evaluation process, editors and reviewers must not enter manuscripts into publicly accessible AI tools, or tools that use user data to train models, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the process.
SMHS does not accept advertising of any kind on its pages, ensuring the independence of its editorial content.
The journal's outreach activities, including manuscript solicitation, are carried out ethically and transparently, directed at researchers in its fields of coverage. All communications contain truthful information about the journal and the publisher.
This section details the rights and responsibilities of each party involved in the SMHS editorial process — the journal, editors, reviewers, authors, and readers — complementing the general ethical principles addressed in item 2.2 and the copyright and licensing terms already established in items 1.7 and 1.10.
SMHS is committed to a fair and transparent editorial process (1.4), to editorial support for authors, especially new researchers (5), and to the permanent preservation of published content (1.9).
Editors maintain confidentiality regarding manuscripts under evaluation, practice academic fair play, disclose any conflicts of interest, and are responsible for final editorial decisions. They cooperate with ethical investigations conducted in accordance with the Integrity, Ethics, and Good Practices in Scientific Publishing Policies (2.2).
The responsibilities and ethical principles that guide reviewers' work are detailed in Section 4 (Guidelines for Reviewers).
Authors are responsible for the originality of the work, for the integrity and availability of the data presented, and for the ethical compliance of the research. They may distribute the published work in institutional repositories in accordance with the Self-Archiving Policy (1.8.2).
Readers have free and open access to all published content (1.6), with quality assured by the peer review process (1.4).
This section provides detailed guidance for submitting manuscripts to SMHS. Our journal is committed to excellence in scientific publishing and to supporting authors, especially those at the beginning of their careers.
The ethical approval requirements — CEP opinion, registration with Plataforma Brasil, informed consent form, and CEUA approval for animal studies — are detailed in the Specific Requirements for each manuscript type (2.1) and in the Ethical Guidelines (2.2).
Authorship is attributed to those who cumulatively meet the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE):
Contributors who do not meet all of these criteria should be acknowledged, not listed as authors.
At the time of submission, authors must attach the Manuscript Identifiable Data Document with the individual contribution of each author and report it on each contributor's registration form during the submission process, in accordance with the CRediT taxonomy.
Each author's contribution to the manuscript must be specified according to the CRediT Taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), adopted internationally to make the nature of each author's participation in the work explicit and verifiable, distinguishing it from the general authorship criteria (3.2). Each author must be associated with one or more of the roles below, reported in the Manuscript Identifiable Data Document (3.4.1):
If a contributor does not fit any of the roles listed above, consider acknowledging them instead. Creating new roles or modifying existing ones is not permitted.
It is desirable for all authors to have an ORCID, a unique researcher identifier. The corresponding author must provide their ORCID.
We recommend that, for each co-author of a manuscript, the same email address used on the co-author's ORCID account be provided.
All declarations, except the Declaration on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, must appear in the Manuscript Identifiable Data document. The Declaration on the Use of Artificial Intelligence must appear in the manuscript itself.
Authors must declare that all data presented in the work were collected and analyzed honestly and transparently, without manipulation that would compromise the veracity of the results; that, in research involving human subjects and/or animals, all procedures followed applicable rules and regulations, with approval from the corresponding ethics committees; and that there was no fabrication, falsification, or omission of relevant data, with methodological aspects described rigorously.
"We declare that all data presented in this work were collected and analyzed honestly and transparently, without manipulation that would compromise the veracity of the results. In cases of research involving human subjects and/or animals, we affirm that all procedures followed applicable rules and regulations and were approved by the corresponding ethics committees. We guarantee that there was no fabrication, falsification, or omission of relevant data, and that all methodological aspects have been rigorously described."
Authors must declare that the work is original and unpublished, not having been published, in whole or in part, in any other peer-reviewed journal or scientific outlet; that the manuscript is not under simultaneous review elsewhere of the same nature; and that all authors agree with the content and with its submission for evaluation to SMHS. Prior availability of the manuscript as a preprint on a recognized server does not constitute prior publication for the purposes of this declaration, provided it is disclosed at the time of submission (1.8.1).
"We declare that the present work is original and has not been previously published, in part or in full, in any other peer-reviewed journal or scientific outlet. We also affirm that the manuscript is not under submission or review for publication elsewhere of the same nature. All authors agree with the content and with its submission for evaluation by this journal."
If the manuscript has previously been made available as a preprint on a recognized server, the authors must declare this at the time of submission, stating the server, the deposit date, and the identifier (DOI or link). In accordance with item 1.8 of these Editorial Policies, prior availability as a preprint does not compromise the manuscript's originality for evaluation purposes by SMHS, provided it is duly disclosed.
"This manuscript was made available as a preprint on the [server name] server, on [date], under DOI/link [identifier]."
"This manuscript has not previously been made available as a preprint."
Authors must declare the absence of conflicts of interest related to the study, affirming that the work was carried out independently, without influence from institutions, organizations, or sponsors that could affect the results or the interpretation of the data. If a conflict of interest exists, the declaration above must be replaced by text clearly describing its nature, the parties involved, and the form of involvement.
"The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the present study. This work was carried out independently, without influence from institutions, organizations, or sponsors that could affect the results or the interpretation of the data presented."
"Author [Name] served as a consultant for [Name/Institution] in the 24 months prior to submission, and the present study evaluates a product or technology marketed by that company. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the present study."
Authors must explicitly state (a) exactly which data (raw dataset, variable dictionary, protocol, statistical analysis plan) were made available, and how and where (see item 2.2.4); (b) the period and starting point of availability; and (c) the criteria and process for accessing the data. A response of "to be determined" or equivalent will not be accepted. For the other manuscript categories, a data availability statement is recommended, indicating the reason if the data cannot be shared.
"The authors declare that the data supporting the results of this study are available within the article. Derived data supporting the findings of this study that are not found in the article may be requested from the corresponding author."
Authors must declare whether, and how, they used generative artificial intelligence tools (including language models, chatbots, and writing or translation assistants) in the preparation, drafting, analysis, or translation of the manuscript, identifying the tool used and its purpose.
AI tools may not be listed as authors, since they cannot be held accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, nor may they be used to generate data or results. Authors are fully responsible for content produced with the assistance of AI, including verifying its accuracy and the absence of plagiarism, even in passages generated by the tool. This declaration must appear in the manuscript and, where applicable, also be reported in the cover letter, in accordance with ICMJE recommendations and SciELO's guidelines on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in scientific publications.
"The authors declare the use of the AI tool [ChatGPT / Gemini / (version)] for [grammar review / translation / writing support]. All content was reviewed and validated by the authors, who assume full responsibility. No AI tool was listed as an author or used to generate data or results."
"The authors declare that they did not use generative artificial intelligence tools in the conception, drafting, analysis, or translation of this manuscript."
Authors must declare the sources of funding that supported the research — funding agency, funding institution, and grant or process number, where applicable — or state that the work was carried out without specific funding. In either case, it must be stated whether the funding entity had any involvement in the study design, data collection or analysis, manuscript drafting, or the decision to submit it for publication.
"This work was funded by [Agency/Institution], under grant/process No. [000/2025]. The funding entity had no involvement in the study design, in the collection and analysis of data, in the drafting of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit it for publication."
"This work was carried out without specific funding from public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies."
Authors must declare the ethical approval of the research by the competent Research Ethics Committee (CEP) — or by the Animal Ethics Committee (CEUA), when applicable — stating the approval/opinion number and, where relevant, the registration with Plataforma Brasil, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2.2).
They must also declare that Informed Consent Forms (ICF) were obtained from participants or, in the case of case reports, the specific authorization form for the use of images and data. Studies that do not directly involve human subjects or animals must justify the waiver of ethical review.
"The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of [Institution] under opinion No. [0.000.000] (CAAE [00000000.0.0000.0000]) and registered with Plataforma Brasil, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. [Animal studies: approved by the Animal Ethics Committee (CEUA) of (Institution) under protocol No. (000).] All participants signed the Informed Consent Form (ICF) prior to data collection. [Case report: the patient(s) authorized publication through a specific authorization form, and all information that could allow identification was omitted.]"
"As this is a [literature review / study using aggregated public-domain data, without identification of individuals], the research did not directly involve human subjects or animals, waiving review by a Research Ethics Committee under the terms of [Brazilian National Health Council (CNS) Resolution No. 510/2016], with no need for informed consent."
The first author must declare whether they wish to submit the manuscript under the 'New Researchers' modality, in accordance with the eligibility criteria of item “5. New Researcher Incentive Program of these Editorial Policies” (authors with no prior publications, little experience, or a lack of confidence in publishing at an early career stage who wish to request free mentorship). This declaration is what triggers the differentiated review process set out in items 5.2–5.3 (the possibility of active mentor support and didactic feedback)."
"The first author declares that they meet the eligibility criteria for the 'New Researchers' modality and requests mentorship in preparing the manuscript prior to submission for peer review."
Author identification must be submitted in a document separate from the main manuscript, to preserve the confidentiality of the double-blind review (1.4). It must contain, according to the model available:
Descriptive text indicating use of the Template and instructions by manuscript type (2.1)
Clarity and consistency in presentation are essential for effective scientific communication. This guide establishes the formatting and style standards for publications in SMHS.
The ethical approval and consent requirements for case reports are described in items 2.1.1.3 (Specific Requirements – Case Reports) and 3.3.8 (Declaration of Ethical Approval and Consent) of these Editorial Policies.
Before submitting, authors declare that they are aware of the Editorial Policies (2) and the Guidelines for Authors (3), and confirm that:
This section guides reviewers invited by SMHS regarding the principles that govern evaluation, the review process, and the ethical aspects involved. SMHS's mission is to foster scientific culture in the medical and health fields, and the reviewer plays a central role in that mission: ensuring the scientific rigor of publications and, where applicable, actively contributing to the development of new researchers, in accordance with the New Researcher Incentive Program (5).
Reviewers are expected to provide scientific rigor, impartiality, and constructive feedback to authors. The evaluation must be technically thorough, clearly communicated, and completed within the timeframe agreed with the editorial team. The reviewer maintains confidentiality regarding the content under evaluation and discloses to the Editor-in-Chief any conflict of interest that could compromise the impartiality of their analysis before accepting the review.
Evaluation begins with a preliminary check of the manuscript's fit with the journal's scope, its originality, and its compliance with ethical guidelines, before proceeding to detailed analysis. In this second stage, the reviewer examines the clarity of the objectives, the appropriateness of the methodology, the quality of the statistical analysis, and the consistency between results and conclusions, taking into account the specific requirements of the manuscript type under review and the corresponding reporting guideline (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, or CARE, as applicable).
The Editor-in-Chief may refer manuscripts with complex methodological designs or statistical analyses for additional statistical review, conducted by a reviewer with training in biostatistics, independently of the thematic peer review. The statistical review verifies the appropriateness of the tests used, the sample size, the handling of missing data, and the accuracy of the presentation of results.
The reviewer maintains absolute confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscript and the evaluation process, not sharing information with third parties or using the material for personal purposes prior to publication. The evaluation must be conducted objectively and impartially, free from personal or institutional bias or bias related to the authors' origin. Suspected misconduct identified during the review must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief, in accordance with the Research Misconduct Policy (2.2.2).
Manuscripts submitted under the New Researchers modality (5) receive an evaluation with a didactic, mentoring approach, without any reduction in the scientific rigor required of other submissions. Reviewers are encouraged to clearly explain the points requiring change, suggest concrete paths for improvement, and acknowledge the positive aspects of the work, supporting the development of early-career authors.
The review report is composed of two parts: confidential comments to the Editor, which may include ethical or administrative matters not intended for the authors; and comments to the authors, which summarize the main points of the evaluation in a constructive and specific manner. The recommendation takes into account the scientific quality of the work (methodology, analysis, and presentation of results), its relevance and contribution to the field's knowledge, and must always be objective, evidence-based, and educational in its justification — whether the recommendation is for acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or, in the case of new researchers, revision with active reviewer support (5).
Serving as a reviewer contributes directly to the quality and rigor of SMHS publications, as well as offering an opportunity for scientific updating and recognition by the academic community. The journal issues a certificate of contribution to reviewers who take part in the editorial process.
In this section you will find detailed information about our New Researcher Incentive Program, designed to encourage and support health researchers in achieving their first publication.
The "New Researchers" modality was developed in a pioneering way within SUMMA Medical & Health Sciences to foster the professional development of new scientists in the medical and health fields. In doing so, we aim to create an environment in which the professional can develop safely and sustainably, with the involvement of leading professionals in their respective fields of study, without ever compromising scientific rigor and quality — quite the opposite, we seek to make it flourish, cultivating an ever stronger and more active scientific culture.
The proposal is based on bringing together two essential elements of good scientific training: on one side, the researcher in training, and on the other, the scientific mentor.
The author must, during the submission process within the SMHS system, select the "New Researchers" model, declaring, as the first author of the work, that they have no prior experience publishing in scientific journals, or that they have published before but are seeking a process that will help them develop further. The work will then be forwarded by the journal's editors to a group of mentors who have previously volunteered to take part in "New Researchers" submissions.
The mentors will receive the works and carry out a preliminary evaluation prior to sending them to reviewers. If they identify points for improvement, they will contact the corresponding author to provide guidance on what should be done so that the work reaches the quality required to have a better chance of being approved in peer review, a mandatory requirement for publication.
The mentor will then join the publication team, now as a co-author of the work, provided that all of the research's original authors agree.
Join SMHS in the pursuit of a culture of scientific excellence and the professional development of new researchers!
