Authors intending to submit to Advances in Healthcare Research (AHR) should review the current Aims & Scope, accepted manuscript types, manuscript requirements, official manuscript template, separate Title Page requirements, peer-review process, publication ethics, Article Processing Charge policy, Open Access and licensing terms, and other applicable journal policies before submission.

AHR accepts manuscripts written in English only. Authors should prepare original, scientifically rigorous, clearly written, and ethically compliant manuscripts that make a substantive scholarly contribution to at least one healthcare or health-related field included in the journal's current Aims & Scope.

All formal submissions must be made through the official AHR Online Journal System (OJS). Manuscripts submitted only through personal email, messaging applications, or unofficial communication channels do not constitute formal journal submissions.

All healthcare and health-related fields explicitly included in the current AHR Aims & Scope form part of the journal's main scholarly scope and have equal standing. These include public health, nursing, midwifery, medicine, pharmacy, health psychology, nutrition, health technology, health analysis, medical laboratory sciences, health information systems, medical records, health informatics, health law, hospital management, healthcare administration, healthcare governance, and related interdisciplinary health research.

A manuscript may establish scope eligibility through a substantive contribution to any one recognized AHR field. It is not required to combine multiple healthcare disciplines when one recognized field provides the principal scientific or scholarly foundation.

AHR accepts two manuscript types only: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper.

Research Paper presents original scientific or empirical research using quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, clinical, epidemiological, laboratory-based, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, longitudinal, cross-sectional, comparative, case-based, development-and-validation, computational, behavioral, or other defensible original-research designs. The study must demonstrate appropriate scientific or conceptual grounding, transparent methodology, credible findings, and a substantive contribution to healthcare knowledge.

Literature Review Paper presents a rigorous scholarly synthesis using an accurately identified and sufficiently transparent narrative, integrative, systematic, scoping, structured, bibliometric, meta-analytical, evidence-synthesis, theory-oriented, concept-oriented, or other defensible literature-review approach. The manuscript must provide meaningful critical synthesis, scientific interpretation, conceptual understanding, methodological insight, evidence-based healthcare implications, or a focused future-research agenda.

Manuscript-Type Principle: Clinical research designs, laboratory methods, pharmaceutical development, analytical techniques, theoretical contributions, conceptual approaches, healthcare technologies, and literature-review methods do not constitute separate manuscript types. Conceptual Papers are not accepted as a separate category. Eligible scientific, theoretical, conceptual, clinical, methodological, practical, and healthcare policy contributions may be developed within a Research Paper or Literature Review Paper.

Authors must prepare and submit two separate files: (1) a Blinded Manuscript and (2) a Title Page & Author Information Form. These files serve different editorial purposes and must not be combined into a single submission document.

1. Blinded Manuscript: The blinded manuscript contains the article title, structured abstract, keywords, selected manuscript type, main text, tables, figures, supporting material where applicable, and references. It must not contain author names, institutional affiliations, author email addresses, acknowledgements revealing author identity, identifying document properties, or other information that could reasonably disclose author identity.

2. Title Page & Author Information Form: The separate Title Page contains verified author names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, corresponding-author details, ORCID information, CRediT contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, Data Availability Statement, acknowledgements, research ethics and consent information where applicable, Generative AI disclosure, third-party permissions, and applicable author and publication declarations.

The corresponding author's ORCID is required. Other authors should provide their ORCID where available. Authors must verify that the institutional and corresponding-author information entered in OJS is consistent with the separate Title Page.

Before submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript is original, is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal, follows the selected AHR manuscript type, complies with the current Aims & Scope, and satisfies the journal's research-integrity, ethical, and submission requirements.

Manuscripts should be prepared using the current official Advances in Research Master Manuscript Template adopted for AHR. The main text must be written in clear academic English using Calisto MT, 11 pt, A4 page size, a single-column layout, and single spacing. Unnecessary blank space, inconsistent formatting, excessive repetition, and unused template instructions should be removed before submission.

The manuscript title must contain no more than 20 words. The structured abstract must not exceed 200 words. Authors must provide 1–6 relevant keywords and select only one of the two accepted manuscript types. The main text must follow the structure appropriate to the selected type.

Manuscripts should normally provide sufficient substantive detail for scholarly evaluation. A manuscript length of approximately 5,000–7,000 words, excluding references, may serve as a general preparation guide where appropriate, provided that the current official master template, article type, scientific requirements, and methodological or review-methodological needs are satisfied.

The current master manuscript template contains separate instructions for Research Papers and Literature Review Papers. Authors must retain only the appropriate manuscript structure and remove instructions or sections that do not apply to their selected paper type. Clinical procedures, analytical techniques, software, statistical tests, laboratory methods, review protocols, and other methodological details must be reported only when genuinely used.

The shared Advances in Research master manuscript template and separate Title Page are designated below for the standardized AHR submission workflow. The existing AHR manuscript-template link is also retained as a journal resource. Where an earlier template contains formatting or structural instructions inconsistent with the current standardized requirements, authors should follow the current master manuscript requirements.

The abstract must be written in English, follow the labels corresponding to the selected manuscript type, and contain no more than 200 words. It should present the scientific objective, research or review methodology, principal substantive findings, implications, and originality without unnecessarily reproducing the detailed numerical output presented in the manuscript.

Research Paper: Use the structured labels Purpose; Research Methodology; Results; Research limitations/Implications; Originality. The abstract should state the research objective or question, summarize the actual research design and analytical approach, communicate the principal empirical, clinical, experimental, laboratory, behavioral, or healthcare findings, identify material limitations and implications, and explain the study's novelty or scientific contribution.

Literature Review Paper: Use the structured labels Purpose; Review Methodology; Findings; Research limitations/Implications; Originality. The abstract should state the review objective or question, describe the actual review approach, summarize the principal evidence patterns, themes, scientific debates, research gaps, or conceptual insights, identify limitations and implications, and explain the review's distinctive scholarly contribution.

Detailed coefficients, p-values, test statistics, confidence intervals, model-fit indices, laboratory measurements, clinical outcome statistics, bibliometric counts, and other numerical outputs should normally be presented in the main text rather than the abstract. A specific numerical value should be included in the abstract only when essential to understanding the principal substantive finding. Authors must not exaggerate the strength, significance, generalizability, clinical effectiveness, or implications of their findings.

A Research Paper should follow the current official manuscript template and normally use the main structure Introduction → Review of Literature → Research Methodology → Results and Discussion → Conclusion. Within Results and Discussion, empirical or scientific results and their scholarly interpretation must remain clearly distinguishable.

1. Introduction: Establish the state of the art, scientific or scholarly context, healthcare research problem, relevant literature gap, novelty, objectives or research questions, and theoretical, methodological, clinical, public health, practical, or policy significance. Clearly explain why the study matters and what contribution it intends to make to healthcare knowledge or practice.

2. Review of Literature: Critically evaluate and synthesize relevant scientific theories, clinical concepts, healthcare frameworks, and prior empirical evidence. Explain consistencies, disagreements, unresolved questions, and relevant research gaps. Develop an appropriate conceptual foundation, research model, propositions, or hypotheses where justified. The section should advance a coherent scholarly argument rather than merely present definitions or list previous studies.

3. Research Methodology: Report the procedures genuinely used to generate and analyze the evidence. Describe the research design, population or unit of analysis, sample or case selection, clinical or healthcare setting, data sources, recruitment or sampling procedures, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection, variables or constructs, measurement instruments, laboratory or clinical procedures, intervention protocols, analytical techniques, validity or reliability procedures, software, and ethical safeguards where applicable. Human-participant and animal research must provide accurate ethics and consent information appropriate to the actual study. This section must describe methods rather than present empirical findings.

4. Results and Discussion: This main section should distinguish the presentation of scientific evidence from scholarly interpretation, using the appropriate subheadings of the current template.

4.1 Research Results: Present the findings accurately and transparently using relevant descriptive, statistical, qualitative, clinical, experimental, epidemiological, laboratory, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, comparative, model-based, or other research evidence. Include material findings that do not support the proposed hypotheses or expected outcomes. Report appropriate tables, figures, analytical outputs, clinically or scientifically relevant measurements, and substantive results without unnecessarily repeating every numerical value in the narrative.

4.2 Discussion: Interpret the substantive scientific meaning of the results in relation to the theoretical or conceptual framework, prior research, healthcare context, and relevant scholarly debates. Explain agreements, differences, unexpected findings, possible mechanisms, clinical or public health relevance, methodological limitations, and scientifically defensible practical or policy implications. Avoid repeating detailed statistical outputs, laboratory measurements, tables, and findings already reported in the Research Results subsection. Interpretations must be supported by the actual evidence and must not imply causality or clinical effectiveness beyond the study design.

5. Conclusion: Provide a concise synthesis that directly answers the research objectives, identifies the principal scientific contribution, explains the most important clinical, healthcare, public health, practical, or policy implications, acknowledges relevant limitations, and proposes focused, defensible future-research directions. The Conclusion must not simply reproduce the Abstract, Results, or Discussion.

Evidence Placement Principle: Research Methodology explains what was done; Research Results reports what the evidence shows; Discussion interprets what the findings mean; and Conclusion states what the study ultimately establishes. Each section must perform a distinct scholarly function and avoid unnecessary duplication.

A Literature Review Paper should normally follow the structure Introduction → Review Methodology → Review Findings / Literature Synthesis → Discussion → Conclusion. Review methodology, evidence synthesis, scholarly interpretation, and conclusions must be presented as distinct functions.

1. Introduction: Establish the healthcare or health-related scholarly problem, review context, state of the literature, knowledge gap, review question or objective, scientific significance, and intended contribution. Explain why a literature review is needed and what the review seeks to clarify, synthesize, extend, or critically evaluate.

2. Review Methodology: Accurately identify the review design and describe how the literature was identified, selected, organized, evaluated, and synthesized. Information sources, scientific databases, search strategies, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, duplicate handling, study-quality assessment, risk-of-bias assessment, analytical approaches, and software should be reported where applicable to the review actually conducted. Not all procedures are required for every review design.

3. Review Findings / Literature Synthesis: Present a substantive synthesis of the evidence through meaningful scientific themes, clinical or healthcare concepts, theoretical perspectives, research streams, healthcare interventions, evidence patterns, methodological developments, scholarly debates, or research gaps. Quantitative, meta-analytical, and bibliometric findings should be reported here when relevant. Avoid a purely descriptive study-by-study listing without meaningful synthesis.

4. Discussion: Interpret the synthesis at a higher scientific and scholarly level. Explain what the accumulated evidence establishes, where disagreements or limitations remain, how the review extends or challenges existing healthcare knowledge, and what theoretical, conceptual, methodological, clinical, public health, practical, or policy implications follow. The strength of recommendations must reflect the quality, consistency, and limitations of the reviewed evidence. Avoid repeating detailed bibliometric counts, tables, and findings already presented.

5. Conclusion: Answer the review objective, synthesize its principal scientific insights, explain originality and contribution, identify limitations, and provide a focused future-research agenda. Conclusions must remain proportionate to the evidence reviewed and should not merely restate the findings or discussion.

Review Integrity: Authors must accurately describe the review design actually conducted. Manuscripts must not claim systematic, PRISMA-based, scoping, bibliometric, meta-analytical, database-search, screening, study-quality assessment, or other specialized procedures unless those procedures were genuinely performed. A PRISMA flow diagram is appropriate only when the review design and actual procedures support its use. Bibliometric mapping or descriptive classification alone is insufficient where substantive scientific and scholarly synthesis is absent.

Tables and figures should be relevant, accurate, clearly numbered, appropriately titled, and placed near their first substantive discussion in the manuscript. Tables and figures must be numbered separately and consecutively. Table titles and figure titles should appear above the respective items, while sources, notes, and explanatory information should appear below.

Figures, diagnostic images, clinical illustrations, laboratory images, research models, conceptual frameworks, review-flow diagrams, statistical charts, epidemiological visualizations, and bibliometric maps must accurately reflect the research design, review methodology, underlying evidence, and findings. Raster figures should preferably have a resolution of at least 300 DPI where applicable. All labels, symbols, data, arrows, relationships, and visual elements must remain clear and publication-ready.

Authors are responsible for securing and documenting necessary copyright permissions for reproduced or adapted figures, tables, datasets, clinical photographs, medical images, and other third-party materials. Identifiable patient photographs or clinical information must not be disclosed without appropriate consent or lawful authorization. Unattributed reproduction, materially misleading visual modification, or alteration of scientific evidence is not acceptable.

AHR accepts submissions in English only. Manuscripts must demonstrate appropriate grammar, academic tone, clarity, readability, scientific and clinical terminology consistency, logical paragraph development, coherence, inclusive language, and international scholarly readability. Authors should follow relevant APA guidance concerning bias-free language and use accurate, respectful, and non-stigmatizing terminology when describing patients, participants, health conditions, or populations.

Language editing and proofreading must preserve the scientific meaning, clinical or laboratory evidence, research findings, analytical results, conceptual relationships, and authorial claims. Authors are not required to purchase a commercial language-editing service as a condition of scholarly consideration or acceptance.

All in-text citations and reference-list entries must follow APA Style, 7th edition. Manuscripts should include at least 25 references, with at least 80% of references drawn from journal articles. Authors should prioritize relevant and recent scientific scholarship, generally from approximately the last ten years, while retaining important seminal, foundational, or clinically significant studies where academically necessary.

Literature Review Papers must draw on a sufficiently broad, appropriate, and defensible body of scientific literature for the review objective, design, and scholarly contribution. The minimum reference requirement does not replace the need for adequate literature coverage, critical evaluation, evidence appraisal, or rigorous synthesis.

Every work cited in the manuscript must appear in the reference list, and every reference-list entry must be cited in the manuscript. Authors must verify the accuracy of author names, publication years, titles, journal names, volume and issue details, page ranges, publishers, DOIs, URLs, and other bibliographic metadata. DOI links should be provided whenever available, and stable URLs should be supplied for eligible online sources.

References must be genuine, traceable, relevant, and accurately represented. Fabricated, fictitious, hallucinated, materially inaccurate, misleading, or unverifiable references are not permitted. Sources must not be cited as supporting scientific, clinical, pharmaceutical, public health, or other healthcare claims that they do not substantiate.

Authors are strongly encouraged to use reference-management software such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote and to complete a thorough citation-to-reference reconciliation before submission. The corresponding author and all coauthors retain responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the submitted reference list.

All listed authors must have made appropriate scholarly contributions, approved the submitted manuscript, agreed to the reported authorship order, and accepted responsibility for the integrity of the work. Authorship must reflect genuine contribution rather than honorary, guest, gift, or otherwise unsupported authorship arrangements.

The corresponding author's ORCID is mandatory. Other authors should provide their ORCID where available. Authorship contributions must be reported using the current CRediT contributor-role framework, accurately reflecting each author's actual contributions.

The separate Title Page & Author Information Form must include the final article title, selected manuscript type, manuscript identification number where already assigned, full author names without academic titles or ranks, complete affiliations, email addresses, corresponding-author information, ORCID details, and applicable CRediT contributions.

Authors must accurately complete applicable declarations concerning research ethics, institutional or organizational approval, informed consent, clinical research registration where applicable, publication consent, patient confidentiality, biological materials, experimental animal welfare, data-use permission, funding, conflicts of interest, Data Availability, acknowledgements, Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies, third-party material permissions, originality, concurrent submission, final manuscript approval, and author accountability.

Ethics approvals, approval numbers, consent statements, clinical trial registration details, institutional authorizations, permissions, funding information, data-access claims, author contributions, and other publication declarations must not be invented, inferred, or presented inaccurately. Where a declaration does not apply, its status must be reported truthfully in accordance with the Title Page instructions and journal policy.

The official Title Page incorporates the normal author-confirmation process. A separate author statement letter is not required in the standard AHR workflow unless specifically requested by the Editorial Office. The Title Page must remain separate from the blinded manuscript throughout the applicable anonymous review process.

Generative AI systems and AI-assisted tools cannot be listed as authors or credited with human authorship responsibility because they cannot assume accountability for originality, accuracy, scientific integrity, ethical compliance, or the final published scholarly record.

Authors remain fully responsible for the manuscript's scientific content, research design, clinical or laboratory data, analysis, interpretation, citations, references, originality, patient confidentiality, ethical compliance, and final scholarly claims. AI-generated or AI-assisted text, calculations, citations, summaries, interpretations, code, figures, diagnostic outputs, and other materials must be independently checked and verified before inclusion.

Substantive use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must be disclosed accurately where applicable, using the journal's designated Title Page or declaration process. Authors must not upload confidential data, identifiable patient or participant information, unpublished third-party materials, or otherwise protected content into external systems where confidentiality, consent, authorization, intellectual-property rights, and appropriate data protection cannot be assured.

AHR applies double-anonymous peer review. The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. The separate Title Page is maintained outside the blinded manuscript for confidential editorial administration and author verification.

Submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening for Aims & Scope relevance, correct manuscript type, originality, scientific contribution, methodological or review-methodological adequacy, research integrity, citation accuracy, anonymization, similarity concerns, research ethics, patient confidentiality where applicable, and compliance with journal submission requirements.

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate scientific, clinical, pharmaceutical, public health, healthcare, theoretical, conceptual, or methodological expertise. Reviewers provide independent scholarly assessments and recommendations. Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than automatically binding.

Authors may be requested to revise their manuscripts and provide clear, accurate responses to reviewer and editorial comments. Revised submissions are evaluated to determine whether substantive scientific concerns have been adequately addressed and whether material ethical, methodological, clinical, analytical, or research-integrity problems remain.

Final scientific-editorial responsibility remains with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Chief Executive Editor. The editorial decision is based on the manuscript, research or review evidence, scientific contribution, reviewer reports, author responses, revised files, research-integrity requirements, and applicable AHR policies.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the current Aims & Scope, fail to meet one of the two recognized manuscript types, lack adequate scientific contribution, contain serious ethical or research-integrity concerns, or do not satisfy essential submission requirements may be declined during initial editorial screening without external peer review.

AHR provides immediate Open Access to published scholarly articles without subscription charges. Authors retain copyright, and published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) , subject to the attribution and reuse requirements of that license and any applicable third-party rights.

For an accepted manuscript where at least one author is institutionally affiliated with an institution in Indonesia, the current standard AHR Article Processing Charge is IDR 500,000 per accepted manuscript.

Where all authors are institutionally affiliated exclusively with institutions outside Indonesia, the manuscript receives a full APC waiver / IDR 0. Institutional affiliation determines APC or waiver eligibility, rather than nationality, citizenship, residence, country of birth, or another personal characteristic. Mixed authorship including at least one Indonesian institutional affiliation is subject to the standard APC.

No APC is payable before final scientific-editorial acceptance. The Editorial Office verifies the applicable APC or waiver after acceptance. Where payment applies, an official AHR invoice provides the authorized payment instructions. APC payment, ability to pay, waiver eligibility, or waiver status does not influence screening, reviewer selection, peer review, revision requirements, or scientific-editorial decisions.

AHR does not charge a mandatory submission fee, peer-review fee, page charge, color-figure charge, mandatory language-editing fee, or separate withdrawal fee. Authors are not required to purchase commercial language editing, proofreading, formatting, consulting, or editorial assistance as a condition of manuscript consideration or acceptance.

Previously issued official invoices and agreed payment terms are not changed retroactively merely because the current APC policy differs from an earlier administrative arrangement. Authors should consult the current APC Policy for payment, waiver administration, withdrawal, refund, and payment-security information.

AHR publishes one annual volume comprising exactly two regular numbered issues. The journal's established publication periods are maintained to preserve its declared publication frequency, editorial administration, and the integrity of previously published scholarly records.

Issue No. 1 — September–February: The first regular issue follows the September–February publication period. This period spans two calendar years, and its corresponding volume and issue assignments remain governed by the journal's official bibliographic and archival records.

Issue No. 2 — March–August: The second regular issue follows the March–August publication period and completes the journal's two-issue publication cycle.

Continuous Publication: Beginning on 1 September 2026, AHR applies continuous publication within the applicable active numbered issue. This model permits individual release of publication-ready articles after completion of required scientific-editorial evaluation, final acceptance, post-acceptance administration, copyediting, proofreading, production, and metadata-verification procedures. Continuous publication does not increase the number of regular issues or alter the journal's declared annual publication frequency.

Historical Record Protection: Previously published volume and issue assignments, article publication dates, pagination, metadata, bibliographic information, DOI records, and established citations remain unchanged. The current editorial and publication framework does not retrospectively reclassify articles or alter the permanent scholarly record.

Publication Ethics: Authors must comply with AHR policies concerning originality, authorship and contributorship, conflicts of interest, human-participant and animal research ethics, informed consent, clinical research registration where applicable, patient confidentiality, data integrity, transparency, citation integrity, Generative AI use, independent peer review, corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and other matters affecting responsible scientific and scholarly publication.

Before submitting to AHR, authors should verify scope eligibility, select the correct manuscript type, prepare the current official manuscript template, complete the separate Title Page, remove all identifying information from the blinded manuscript, verify the structured abstract and keywords, reconcile citations with the reference list, confirm the accuracy of scientific data and analytical results, and complete all applicable research-ethics and publication declarations.

Authors should ensure that every coauthor has approved the submission and authorship order, that the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere, that relevant ethical approvals and third-party permissions are in place, and that all required OJS metadata are accurate and consistent with the separate Title Page. Formal submission takes place only through the official AHR OJS platform.

Principal Editorial Contact: Matters requiring scientific-editorial attention may be directed to the Chief Executive Editor, Nurfardiansyah Burhanuddin, through the official editorial email editor@advancesinresearch.id .

Journal & Administrative Support: Questions about submission administration, editorial correspondence, manuscript files, OJS access, and applicable journal procedures may be directed to the Managing Editor, Haeril Amir, through the official administrative email advancesresearch@gmail.com .

Administrative WhatsApp: +62 821 9454 8786 . Administrative communication does not replace formal manuscript submission or the official scientific evaluation and editorial-decision process conducted through OJS.