Probe Journals – Publish Scholarly Articles with Rapid Review

Author Guidelines

Our journals are all open access. Each article published by Probe Publisher follows a specific format.
Submit manuscript as an e-mail attachment to the Editorial Office at publish@probejournals.com

General Instructions

Covering Letter: All submissions must include a covering letter specifying the manuscript type (e.g., Research Article, Review Article, Brief Report, Case Study, etc.). Authors may not categorize submissions as Editorials, Letters to the Editor, or Concise Communications unless specifically invited by the editorial office.

Authorship Compliance: Ensure that all listed authors meet the journal’s authorship criteria as outlined by Journal.

Exclusivity: Manuscripts must not be under review or consideration by any other journal at the time of submission.

Conflict of Interest & Financial Disclosure: Clearly disclose any financial support from commercial sources or other potential conflicts of interest. Any competing interests should also be addressed upon publication.

Title Page Requirements: Include a clear title and detailed author information on the title page.

Author details should include:

Full name
Institutional affiliation
Academic qualifications
Contact information

The corresponding author must provide a complete mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and email address.

Manuscript Formatting:

Paginate all pages sequentially, including references, tables, and figure legends.

Page 1 should be the title page, including:

Short running title (no acronyms)

Full title
Authors’ names and academic degrees
Funding acknowledgments
Contact details for correspondence and reprint requests

Manuscript Categories & Guidelines

1.Research article:

Based on original empirical or secondary data using a defined research methodology.

Must contribute new knowledge to the field of journal.

Include a minimum 300-word abstract structured into: Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusion, with 7–10 keywords.

Structure:

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

References, Tables, and Figure Legends

2. Review Articles

Based on secondary data relevant to the journal’s scope.

Provide a critical overview of a specific topic.

Include:

300-word abstract

Relevant keywords

Introduction to the topic

Analytical discussion with appropriate visual aids

Summary and conclusion

Full references

3. Commentaries

Brief opinion pieces by subject matter experts discussing current advancements or developments.

Include:

Title and abstract with keywords

Direct analysis of the issue with optional figures/tables

Conclusion and references

4. Case Studies

Present detailed reports of individual cases that provide new insights in topic

Format:

Cases and Methods section (describing the clinical issue and approach)

Discussion

Conclusion

5. Editorials

Short commentaries on recently published research or journal issues.

Only accepted upon invitation from the editorial office.

Must be submitted within three weeks of the invitation.

6. Clinical Images

Photographic depictions relevant to topic (maximum 5 figures).

Must be accompanied by a description (max 300 words).

No separate figure legends or references required (up to 3 references if necessary).

Accepted formats: .TIFF (preferred) or .EPS.

7. Letters to the Editor / Concise Communications

Commentaries on previously published articles.

Must be concise and directly address issues or findings presented in the original article.

No abstract or subheadings required.

Should be submitted within six months of the article’s publication.

Please ensure all submissions adhere to these guidelines to facilitate a smooth review process.

For questions, contact the editorial office.

Review process

Our journal follows double blind peer review process. Initially preliminary analysis will be done for all type of articles, later editors will check the scope of the articles, followed by the review process. Editor’s decision will be the final step to accept the articles.

Author Withdrawal Policy

We are not charging any kind of withdrawal fee if the authors want to withdraw the article within 3-5 days. If the authors want to withdraw the article after 5 days, we will charge EUR 219 as a withdrawal fee.

Flow of Manuscript in the Peer Review Process

The editorial or manuscript workflow plays a pivotal role in guiding each manuscript through the peer review process. This process is typically managed electronically via online platforms such as the Editorial Tracking System, and is often supplemented by direct email correspondence.

Preliminary analysis

Submitted articles first undergo preliminary analysis to determine their suitability in terms of the journal’s scope and alignment with the designated article types. At this stage, a preliminary check for basic grammatical accuracy is also conducted.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for this preliminary analysis, ensuring that the manuscript meets the journal’s fundamental criteria. Following this, a plagiarism check is rigorously performed on each submission to uphold academic integrity and originality.

Step #1

Plagiarism Check

Articles that pass the plagiarism check are assigned a manuscript number and proceed to the next stage of the editorial process. Submissions found to contain plagiarized content are promptly rejected, and appropriate action is taken in accordance with the journal’s ethical guidelines.

Step #2

Assigning Editor

Once a manuscript is assigned a manuscript number, the Editor-in-Chief selects and invites an appropriate Handling Editor based on their subject-matter expertise relevant to the submission.

During this selection process, any potential conflicts of interest are carefully assessed and avoided to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the editorial review.

Step #3

Peer Review Process

The assigned Handling Editor manages the peer review process under the guidance of the Editor-in-Chief.
• The Editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
• Once confirmed, reviewers are responsible for conducting a technical evaluation of the manuscript. This includes assessing the scientific validity, novelty, methodological soundness, and overall organization of the work.
• Reviewers provide concise, constructive, and clear comments, aimed at guiding both the authors in revising the manuscript and the editors in making informed decisions.

Step #4

Reviewer Comments and Decision

Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the manuscript is assigned one of four possible editorial decisions:
Acceptance, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Rejection. Once all reviewer reports are submitted, the Editorial Office notifies the assigned Handling Editor, who then consolidates the feedback and proceeds with the decision-making process in coordination with the Editor-in-Chief.

Step #5

Editor's Decision

The Handling Editor carefully assesses the reviewer comments and determines the outcome of the manuscript. This editorial decision is considered final at the handling level, unless further intervention is required.
• If revisions are requested, the authors are notified and provided with detailed reviewer feedback. They are expected to resubmit the revised manuscript within a specified timeframe.
• Upon resubmission, the Editor reviews the revised version to ensure that all concerns have been addressed. Based on the extent of the revisions, the Editor may either make a final decision or send the manuscript back to reviewers for an additional round of evaluation.
Throughout the process, the Editor-in-Chief maintains oversight and authority, with the ability to intervene or make the final decision on any manuscript, especially in complex or disputed cases.