Author Guidelines
Scope and Types of Manuscripts The Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (INAJOG) welcomes submissions in the form of original Research Articles, Systematic Review, and Systematic Review with Meta Analysis, from scholars and practitioners in the field. Manuscripts must be original, not previously published or under consideration elsewhere, and should be written in English. The length of each submission should not exceed 5,000 words or ten pages.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Titles are expected to be concise, specific, and informative, accompanied by a short running title of no more than fifteen words. Authors must provide their full names, the corresponding author’s address for proofs, and the institutional affiliation to which the work should be attributed.
Abstract and Keywords Each manuscript must include an abstract of no more than 250 words, summarizing the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions of the study. The abstract should be followed by three to five keywords that reflect the core content of the work.
Introduction The introduction should present the background of the problem, articulate the research question, and state the objectives of the study. It must provide sufficient context to justify the relevance and importance of the research.
Methods The methods section must describe the materials and procedures in sufficient detail to allow replication. Established methods should be properly referenced, while new or modified methods must be explained thoroughly. Ethical approval must be clearly stated for all studies involving human subjects.
Results Results should be presented in a logical sequence, supported by tables and figures only when necessary to highlight key findings. Decimal numbers must use a point as the separator. Tables, figures, and photographs should be cited consecutively in the text, and non‑standard abbreviations must be defined at their first mention. Mathematical equations should be clearly stated.
Discussion and Conclusion The discussion should interpret the results, explain their significance, and compare them with previous studies. Authors are expected to highlight how their findings contribute to solving the research problem, acknowledge limitations, and suggest directions for future research. This section should conclude with a clear statement of the study’s overall findings. The conclusion itself must provide concise answers to the research question in clear and descriptive sentences.
References References must follow the Vancouver style and be managed using applications such as Mendeley or EndNote. Authors are required to include at least two citations from INAJOG. References must be cited in the text using superscript Arabic numerals, numbered consecutively in order of appearance, and listed at the end of the manuscript in numeric sequence.
Tables and Figures Research Article may contain a maximum of three tables, figures or graphs. Photographs, whether in color or black and white, must be clear and of high quality. All tables and figures must be numbered consecutively and cited in the text.
Structure of Articles Research articles should be organized into title, author information, abstract, objectives, methods, results ending with a conclusion, and references.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS
Scope
INAJOG welcomes high-quality Systematic Reviews and Systematic Reviews with Meta-analysis that address clinically relevant, methodological, or public health questions in obstetrics and gynecology.
Manuscripts must provide a clearly defined research question, a reproducible and comprehensive literature search, transparent study selection, appropriate assessment of risk of bias, systematic data extraction, and a rigorous synthesis of the available evidence.
A manuscript that merely summarizes previously published studies without a systematic and reproducible methodology will not be considered a systematic review.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
1. All systematic reviews submitted to INAJOG should follow the PRISMA 2020 Statement.
Authors must:
a. Complete the PRISMA 2020 Checklist.
b. Upload the completed checklist as a mandatory supplementary file during submission.
c. Include a PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram in the main manuscript.
d. Ensure that all information in the checklist corresponds to the submitted manuscript.
The PRISMA checklist does not replace the requirement for a scientifically rigorous systematic review methodology.
2. Title
The title should:
a. Clearly identify the article as a systematic review.
b. Accurately reflect the population, intervention/exposure, comparator, and outcome where appropriate.
c. Be concise and informative.
d. Contain no more than 15 words, in accordance with INAJOG requirements.
Examples:
Effectiveness of HPV Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
If a meta-analysis is performed, the title should clearly indicate this where appropriate.
3. Abstract
The abstract should not exceed 250 words. The abstract should be structured as:
Objectives
State the review question and primary objective.
Methods
Briefly describe:
a. Databases searched;
b. Date of the search;
c. Eligibility criteria;
d. Study designs included;
e. Risk-of-bias assessment;
f. Synthesis method.
Results
Report:
a. Number of studies included;
b. Main characteristics of the evidence;
c. Principal findings.
For meta-analysis, include the principal pooled effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate.
Conclusion
Provide a concise conclusion supported by the available evidence. The abstract should follow the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts recommendations.
Keywords
Provide a maximum of 5 keywords. Keywords should:
a. Be written in lowercase;
b. Be arranged alphabetically;
c. Be separated by commas;
d. Preferably use appropriate MeSH terminology where applicable.
Example:
cervical cancer, human papillomavirus, screening, self-sampling, systematic review.
4. Introduction
The Introduction should contain:
Background and rationale
Explain:
a. the clinical or scientific problem;
b. its importance;
c. current knowledge;
d. gaps or controversies in the literature;
e. why a systematic review is necessary?
Authors should avoid an unnecessarily long narrative review in the Introduction.
Objective
State the review question and objective clearly. Where appropriate, the research question should be structured according to:
PICO
a. P – Population/Problem
b. I – Intervention/Exposure
c. C – Comparator
d. O – Outcome
Other frameworks may be used when more appropriate to the research question.
5. Methods
The Methods section must be sufficiently detailed to allow another researcher to reproduce the review.
A. Protocol and Registration
Authors should state whether a protocol was prepared and whether the review was registered. Where applicable, provide:
a. Registration platform;
b. Registration number;
c. Date of registration;
d. Protocol URL.
For example:
This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: XXXXX). If the review was not registered, this should be stated transparently. Registration is strongly encouraged, particularly for prospective systematic reviews.
B. Eligibility Criteria
Clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria before presenting the search results. The criteria should specify, as applicable:
a. Population;
b. Intervention/exposure;
c. Comparator;
d. Outcomes;
e. Study design;
f. Publication period;
g. Language;
h. Setting;
i. Other relevant characteristics.
The eligibility criteria must be consistent with the research question.
C. Information Sources
Specify all information sources searched, including:
a. Bibliographic databases;
b. Cinical trial registries;
c. Websites;
d. Reference lists;
e. Citation tracking;
f. Other relevant sources.
The date of the last search for each source must be reported.
D. Search Strategy
The search strategy must be sufficiently detailed and reproducible. Authors should report:
a. Aatabase name;
b. Platform/interface;
c. Date searched;
d. Search terms;
e. Boolean operators;
f. Filters;
g. Limits;
h. other search methods.
The complete search strategy for every database searched should be provided, preferably as a supplementary file. A single generic statement such as: “PubMed was searched using relevant keywords” is insufficient.
E. Study Selection
Describe the process used to identify eligible studies. Authors should report:
a. Number of reviewers involved;
b. Whether screening was performed independently;
c. Method used to resolve disagreements;
d. Whether automation tools were used;
e. Number of records screened;
f. Number of full-text articles assessed;
g. Reasons for exclusion.
The selection process must correspond to the PRISMA Flow Diagram.
F. Data Collection and Extraction
Describe how data were extracted. Specify:
a. Number of reviewers;
b. Whether extraction was performed independently;
c. Method used to resolve disagreements;
d. Whether a standardized data extraction form was used;
e. Procedures for contacting study authors when information was missing.
At minimum, extracted information should include relevant:
a. Study characteristics;
b. Participant characteristics;
c. Intervention/exposure;
d. Comparator;
e. Outcomes;
f. Follow-up;
g. Relevant effect estimates;
h. Study funding, when applicable.
G. Risk of Bias Assessment
All included studies must undergo an appropriate assessment of risk of bias. The tool should be appropriate for the study design. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Cochrane Risk of Bias tools; ROBINS-I; Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; JBI critical appraisal tools; QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy studies; other validated tools appropriate to the study design.
Authors must describe:
the assessment tool; number of reviewers; whether assessment was performed independently; method for resolving disagreements. Risk-of-bias results should be presented in an appropriate table and/or figure.
H. Data Synthesis
For a systematic review without meta-analysis, authors should clearly explain how findings were synthesized. The synthesis should not simply consist of a narrative repetition of the results of individual studies. Authors should explain:
a. how studies were grouped;
b. how outcomes were compared;
c. how differences between studies were considered;
d. how consistency or inconsistency of findings was assessed.
e. Where quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, authors should explain why.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS
1. Additional Requirements for Meta-analysis
Systematic reviews incorporating meta-analysis must satisfy all requirements for systematic reviews and provide additional information regarding the statistical synthesis. A meta-analysis should only be conducted when studies are sufficiently comparable in terms of:
• research question;
• population;
• intervention/exposure;
• comparator;
• outcome;
• study design; and
• available data.
Statistical pooling should not be performed solely because numerical data are available.
A. Effect Measures
Clearly specify the effect measure used for each outcome, such as:
• Risk Ratio (RR);
• Odds Ratio (OR);
• Hazard Ratio (HR);
• Mean Difference (MD);
• Standardized Mean Difference (SMD);
• prevalence/proportion;
B. Diagnostic accuracy measures; or
• Another appropriate measure. The rationale for the selected effect measure should be clear.
C. Statistical Model
Specify the meta-analysis model used, including:
• Fixed-effect model; or
• Random-effects model.
The choice of model should be justified where appropriate.
D. Heterogeneity
Authors must assess statistical heterogeneity when quantitative synthesis is performed. Report appropriate measures, such as:
• I² statistic;
• Cochran's Q;
• τ², where applicable.
Authors should interpret heterogeneity rather than merely reporting the I² value.
E. Subgroup Analysis
Subgroup analyses may be performed when scientifically justified. Potential subgroup variables may include:
• Age;
• Disease severity;
• Intervention characteristics;
• Geographic region;
• Study design;
• Follow-up duration;
• Risk of bias;
• Other clinically meaningful characteristics.
Post-hoc subgroup analyses should be clearly identified.
F. Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses should be performed when appropriate to assess the robustness of the pooled results. Examples include:
• Exclusion of studies with high risk of bias;
• Leave-one-out analysis;
• Alternative statistical models;
• Exclusion of outliers;
• Other prespecified approaches.
If sensitivity analysis was not performed, authors should provide an appropriate explanation when relevant.
G. Publication Bias and Small-study Effects
Authors should assess the possibility of publication bias or small-study effects when appropriate. Methods may include:
• Funnel plot;
• Egger's test;
• Other appropriate statistical methods.
The limitations of these methods should be acknowledged. Authors should avoid using funnel plot asymmetry tests when the number of studies is too small to provide meaningful interpretation.
H. Software
The statistical software used for the meta-analysis must be reported. Examples include:
• Review Manager (RevMan);
• R;
• Stata;
• Comprehensive Meta-Analysis;
• Other appropriate statistical software.
The software version should be provided where possible.
2. Results
A. Study Selection
Report:
• Number of records identified;
• Number of duplicates removed;
• Number of records screened;
• Number of records excluded;
• Number of full-text reports assessed;
• Number of reports excluded after full-text assessment;
• Reasons for exclusion;
• Number of studies included.
The results must correspond exactly with the PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram.
B. Study Characteristics
Provide an appropriate table summarizing the characteristics of included studies. The table should generally include:
• First author;
• Publication year;
• Country/setting;
• Study design;
• Sample size;
• Participant characteristics;
• Intervention/exposure;
• Comparator;
• Outcomes;
• Relevant follow-up period.
C. Risk of Bias
Present the risk-of-bias assessment for all included studies. Results should be presented clearly using tables and/or figures.
D. Results of Individual Studies
Where appropriate, report the relevant findings of individual studies before presenting the overall synthesis.
E. Results of Meta-analysis
For meta-analysis, present:
• Pooled effect estimate;
• 95% confidence interval;
• Statistical significance where appropriate;
• Heterogeneity;
• Number of contributing studies;
• Appropriate forest plots.
Additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses should be reported when performed.
3. Certainty of Evidence
Authors are strongly encouraged to assess the certainty of evidence for important outcomes. The GRADE approach may be used where appropriate. The assessment should consider domains such as:
• Risk of bias;
• Inconsistency;
• Indirectness;
• Imprecision;
• Publication bias.
For important outcomes, a Summary of Findings table is encouraged.
4. Discussion
The Discussion should include:
Principal findings
Summarize the main findings without simply repeating the Results section.
Interpretation
Interpret the findings in the context of existing evidence and clinical relevance.
Strengths and limitations
Discuss limitations related to:
• The included evidence;
• Risk of bias;
• Heterogeneity;
• Search strategy;
• Publication bias;
• Methodological limitations of the review;
• Limitations of the meta-analysis, where applicable.
Implications
Discuss implications for:
• Clinical practice;
• Policy;
• Research.
Conclusions must not extend beyond the available evidence.
5. Conclusion
The conclusion should be concise and directly supported by the findings. Authors should avoid statements that imply causality when the underlying evidence does not support causal inference.
6. Other Information
A. Funding
Report all sources of financial or non-financial support for the review. The role of the funder should be stated.
B. Conflict of Interest
All authors must disclose relevant competing interests.
C Availability of Data, Code, and Materials
Authors should state whether the following are available:
• data extraction forms;
• extracted datasets;
• statistical analysis datasets;
• analytical code;
• other materials used in the review.
Where publicly available, provide an appropriate repository or access information.
7. Figures and Tables
Systematic reviews should use tables and figures efficiently. The main manuscript should include, where applicable:
• PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram
• Characteristics of included studies
• Risk-of-bias assessment
• Results of the synthesis
• Forest plots for meta-analysis, where applicable
Additional tables or analyses may be submitted as supplementary files. All figures and tables must be cited in the text.
8. References
References must follow the Vancouver style required by INAJOG.
Authors should:
• number references according to their first appearance in the text;
• use numbered in-text citations;
• avoid author-name citation in the manuscript text;
• use appropriate journal abbreviations;
• provide DOI when available.
Authors are encouraged to include relevant recent literature. Where appropriate, authors should cite relevant articles previously published in INAJOG.
9. Manuscript Requirements
Unless otherwise specified by the Editor-in-Chief:
• Maximum manuscript length: 5,000 words
• Abstract: maximum 250 words
• Keywords: maximum 5
• Combined tables/figures: maximum 5
Additional supplementary materials may be submitted when necessary to support transparency and reproducibility.
10. Mandatory Submission Files
For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with meta-analysis, authors must submit the following:
Main Manuscript
The manuscript must contain the completed PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram.
Mandatory Supplementary File
Completed PRISMA 2020 Checklist
The checklist must indicate the page/section where each PRISMA item is addressed.
Additional Supplementary Files, When Applicable
Authors should provide:
• Complete search strategies for all databases;
• Protocol or registration information;
• Data extraction forms;
• Additional risk-of-bias tables;
• Additional analyses;
• Statistical code;
• Other materials necessary for reproducibility.
11. Editorial Screening
Before peer review, the editorial office will assess whether the submission:
• Is genuinely a systematic review;
• Follows PRISMA 2020;
• Contains a reproducible search strategy;
• Provides explicit eligibility criteria;
• Includes an appropriate risk-of-bias assessment;
• Includes the PRISMA Flow Diagram;
• Includes the completed PRISMA Checklist as a supplementary file;
• Provides appropriate statistical methods when meta-analysis is performed;
• Meets INAJOG formatting and reference requirements.
Failure to provide the required documentation may result in the manuscript being returned to the authors for completion before peer review.
12. Important Distinction: Systematic Review vs Meta-analysis
A systematic review systematically identifies, evaluates, and synthesizes evidence from eligible studies. A systematic review with meta-analysis additionally performs a quantitative statistical synthesis of results from multiple studies. A meta-analysis is not mandatory simply because a manuscript is a systematic review. Quantitative pooling should only be performed when scientifically and statistically appropriate. Authors must not perform statistical pooling when substantial clinical or methodological differences make the pooled estimate inappropriate.
13. Required Reporting Framework
The following framework should be followed:
Systematic Review
PRISMA 2020
↓
Comprehensive search
↓
Transparent study selection
↓
Data extraction
↓
Risk-of-bias assessment
↓
Narrative/systematic synthesis
↓
Certainty of evidence, where appropriate
Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
PRISMA 2020
↓
Comprehensive search
↓
Transparent study selection
↓
Data extraction
↓
Risk-of-bias assessment
↓
Quantitative synthesis
↓
Effect estimates + 95% CI
↓
Heterogeneity assessment
↓
Subgroup/sensitivity analysis, where appropriate
↓
Publication bias assessment, where appropriate
↓
Certainty of evidence, where appropriate
14. Author Submission Checklist
Before submitting a systematic review or systematic review with meta-analysis, authors should confirm:
• The manuscript follows PRISMA 2020.
• The title identifies the study as a systematic review, where appropriate.
• The abstract follows PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts.
• The research question is clearly stated.
• Eligibility criteria are explicitly defined.
• All information sources are reported.
• The complete search strategy is available.
• The date of the last search is reported.
• The study selection process is described.
• The data extraction process is described.
• Risk of bias has been assessed using an appropriate tool.
• The PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram is included in the main manuscript.
• The completed PRISMA 2020 Checklist is uploaded as a supplementary file.
• Protocol/registration information is reported, when applicable.
• For meta-analysis, the effect measure is specified.
• For meta-analysis, the statistical model is specified.
• Heterogeneity is appropriately assessed.
• Subgroup and sensitivity analyses are reported when performed.
• Publication bias/small-study effects are assessed when appropriate.
• The statistical software is reported.
• The certainty of evidence is assessed where appropriate.
• Funding and competing interests are declared.
• References follow Vancouver style.
• Relevant INAJOG references have been considered where appropriate.
• Tables and figures comply with INAJOG requirements.
15. Editorial Policy
Compliance with PRISMA 2020 is a minimum reporting requirement and does not guarantee acceptance. INAJOG evaluates systematic reviews based on the scientific importance of the question, methodological rigor, comprehensiveness of the search, appropriateness of study selection, quality of risk-of-bias assessment, appropriateness of synthesis, statistical validity of meta-analysis when applicable, certainty of evidence, clinical relevance, and originality.
Manuscripts that satisfy the PRISMA checklist but have substantial methodological weaknesses may be rejected.
Formatting Requirements Manuscripts must be submitted through the INAJOG website, typed with 1.5 line spacing on A4 paper, in single‑column format, with margins of 2.5 cm on all sides.
Authorship (ICMJE Standards) In accordance with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship must be based on four essential criteria. Each author should have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. They must have participated in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content, approved the final version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved. Contributors who do not meet all of these criteria should be acknowledged separately.
Publication Ethics (COPE Principles) In line with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), all authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence the interpretation of their work. The journal strictly prohibits plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, and duplicate publication. Editors are committed to ensuring a fair and confidential peer review process, while reviewers are expected to provide objective assessments and declare any conflicts of interest. Should serious errors or ethical concerns be identified after publication, the journal will issue corrections or retractions following COPE’s established flowcharts and procedures.
Copyright and Licensing The editorial team reserves the right to edit manuscripts for clarity, conciseness, and consistency. Copyright of accepted manuscripts is transferred to INAJOG under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 International License. This license allows others to remix, transform, or build upon the work for non‑commercial purposes, provided proper acknowledgement is given to the authors and to INAJOG as the original publisher. Authors are permitted to copy and redistribute the published version of their work for non‑commercial use, with acknowledgement of its initial publication in INAJOG.
Responsibility All data, opinions, and statements in the manuscript are the sole responsibility of the authors. The publisher, editorial board, and staff of INAJOG accept no responsibility for any inaccurate or misleading data, opinions, or statements. Ethical clearance must be attached for all Research Articles.
