1) Submission of papers

The papers are only submitted electronically, by using the preestablished Word template (https://www.eemyy.gr/docman/various/ 288-healthreview-paper-tem plate-2), in the following e-mail healthreview@eemyy.gr

2) Subjects, types and extent of papers

Papers dealing with issues related to Health Economics and Policies, Health Informatics, Biomedical Technology, Quality and mainly the Scientific Management of Health Services both in Greece and internationally are accepted for peer-review. Papers with entirely clinical content (eg clinical trial results) do not fall within the scope of the journal.

Original papers presented at conferences or other scientific events of HHSMA are also considered to have been submitted for peer-review and subsequent publication in the journal “HEALTH Review”, unless there is a clear objection.

Depending on the type, the submitted papers should not exceed the following number of words, including the Summary of the Tables and the Bibliographies:

Research studies and Literature Reviews: until 3.500 words
Opinion and informative papers: until 1.500 words
Letters and Book reviews: until 500 words

3) Structure and Formatting of the content of papers Language & Formatting of text / shapes / tables: All papers submitted for peer-review should be written in Greek or English, on A4 size pages, with a white border of 2 cm on all sides, in Times New Roman or Arial font, in letters of size 12 and typed in double line spacing. All pages must be numbered in the lower right corner.

Pages of identity, title and abstract. All papers to be reviewed should be accompanied by the abovementioned pages in the following order:

The first Page of identity should indicate in mixed case letters, the Job Title (up to 15 words), the Name (s) – formal/academic qualifications – professional titles – the employer – the postal address – the phone number – and the author’s/authors’ email address. If there are more than one author, the corresponding author for the journal is appointed.

The second Page of title should indicate in mixed case letters both the full and short title of the paper. The short title of the paper should not exceed the 50 characters. Names should not be written on this page.

The third page of the Greek Abstract should indicate the purpose/objective of the paper with clarity, briefly the methodology and some basic representative findings from the paper as well as the main conclusions. The length of the summary can range from 200 until 300 words. At the end of the Abstract, 3- 6 Keywords should be referred.

On the Fourth page, the Title of the Job position in English, the name/s of the author/s with Latin characters and the English Abstract (200-300 words) with the same content as the Greek one are written and also accompanied by the 3- 6 Keywords.

Main body of the paper: Each paper should be structured in separate sections which need to have the corresponding titles such as the following titles proposed:

• Introduction
• Purpose – Objectives
• Methodology aResults
• Discussion – Conclusion
• Acknowledgments (if the authors consider this appropriate)
• Funding Statement (if applicable)
• Declaration of Conflict of interest (if applicable)
• Literature references The editor-in-chief of the journal draws the attention of (especially young) authors to the following topics:
• Clearly state the primary purpose – objective of the paper and distinctly describe each research question
• Summarize in the Discussion – Conclusions section the main findings of the paper (which should have been presented in detail in the section of Results) and comment them in relation to the Greek and international literature. Tables, shapes and charts should not be placed in this section.

In the same section, interpretative comments of the authors and/or working hypotheses that derive from the study and need further investigation in the future or the limitations of the study (if they were not described in the section of Methodology) can be placed. The section concludes with a reference to the contribution of the findings of the paper to the exercise of health policy and / or to the formulation of realistic proposals for dealing with a problem or improving the way an issue is managed. Successful writing of the discussion requires authors’ skillfulness so that the reader could immediately understand which of the following: a) relate to findings of the current study b) refer to results of other comparable studies and c) relate to personal views/interpretative comments or working hypotheses posed by the authors.

• The literature references should follow the: Vancouver reference style (https://help.ebsco.com/interfaces/EBSCO_Guides/EBSCO_Inte rfaces_User_Guide/Citing_Articles_in_Vancouver_ICMJE_Style) Or Harvard reference style https://connect.ebsco.com/s/article/Citing-Articles-in-Harvard- Author-Date-Style?language=en_US

However, the same reference system must be observed uniformly throughout the paper, by faithfully following the respective international standards. Use of the DOI is highly encouraged.

• Tables, Shapes, Charts, can also be colored. They should definitely be numbered in the order in which they are listed. The Tables should be titled after the numbering (at the top) and similarly the Shapes/Charts should have an explanatory subtitle/caption (at the bottom) and be placed in the paper, in the desired place of their quotation. However, the editor-in-chief of the journal reserves the right to final pagination, based on technical criteria. In particular, for the Methodology and Results sections, the instructions to the authors for each type of paper are the following:

I. Research Papers

• The section of the Methodology should include: the type of study (eg quantitative synchronous, quantitative retrospective, qualitative etc.), the size and composition of the population under study (eg health professionals of specific specializations, users of services of specific type structures, etc.), the method of sampling (eg convenience sampling1, random sampling2), the method of data collection (eg with personal interviews, self-completing questionnaires, etc.) the time of data collection, as well as the “tool/s” of the study. If a “tool/s” is developed by other researchers then it is definitely necessary to be referred to the Methodology section and the process of obtaining the relevant approvals or if it is a tool available for free. In the case that the tool was created by the authors themselves, the development process should be stated (eg conducting a pilot study for its weighting). In the same or in a separate sub-section, the relevant approvals obtained for the conduct of the study (eg approval of aprotocol by ethics committees, authorization to conduct a study by scientific committees of hospitals, etc.), and the relevant moral and ethical issues (eg how to ensure informed consent of the participants, anonymous management of the personal data of the participants, etc.) should also be mentioned. In addition, in the Methodology section, it is necessary to make a brief description of the way of analysis of the data and the statistical tests that were applied. Finally, the section of either Methodology or Discussion should include the Limitations of each study.

• The Results section includes a presentation of the findings of the paper with the use of a limited number of Tables – Shapes – Charts, accompanied by the text where the worth-mentioning results will be cited. However, all the findings presented in the form of tables-shapes-charts should not be repeated in the text. Moreover, the Results section should not refer to similar findings of other papers, nor should any interpretive comments of the authors be stated in this section (as these should be presented in the Discussion section).

II. Systematic Review Papers

• In the Methodology section describe: the sources of the papers (eg electronic databases such as Scopus, Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect), the keywords in all the languages used, the period of publication of the papers included in the systematic review as well as the review criteria of the papers.
  Authors are strongly encouraged to consider the PRISMA Checklist when writing systematic review papers (http://www.prismastatement.org/).
  It is emphasized that systematic reviews carried out by other authors should not be included in the presented studies of a new systematic review.

• In the Results section, firstly set the Flow Chart through which the different phases of the systematic review should be recorded.
  The Flow Chart illustrates the number of studies identified related to the topic and successively the reasons for the exclusion
  of some of these studies, the remaining number of studies and the final number of studies included in the systematic review
  http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram.aspx.

The description of the studies included in the systematic review should be captured through tables as well where in separate columns: the authors of each paper, the year of publication and the country/countries (in case of transnational studies),
the purpose/object of each study, the participants/sample of the study, the type of study (eg quantitative, qualitative, etc.) and  the main findings will be presented.