About the Journal

Focus and Scope

OBJECTIVES

To establish a high-impact academic platform that responds to the publishing needs of students and professionals in the medical sciences, both Cuban and international, in compliance with Agreement 25 of Commission 3 of the VII National Congress of the FEU (Federal University of Barcelona). The journal aims to be a rigorous and inclusive space for disseminating cutting-edge research in health sciences, fostering scientific criticism, reflection, and debate on priority medical and public health topics. With international editorial standards, 2 of December Journal seeks to highlight the work of emerging researchers, enrich global scientific dialogue, and drive innovation in medical education and practice.

MISSION

Manage the quality publication of 2 of December Journal, from Granma Province, with the mission of disseminating the scientific-technical work of students and health professionals, Cubans and foreigners; covering all aspects of Medical Sciences and other related sciences.

VISION

2 of December Journal aims to achieve a publication that disseminates quality scientific material, with transparency and accessibility that is a framework of reference at a national and international level for health sciences researchers. Additionally, achieve and maintain better positioning.

Adheres to the uniform requirements for the submission of articles to biomedical journals: writing and editing of biomedical publications (www.icmje.com), and promotes the application of international standards or established good practices both for the preparation of articles and for your publication.

Manuscripts that have been previously published or are being evaluated for possible publication in another journal are not accepted. However, documents previously published on recognized preprint servers (Scielo Preprints, Medxiv, ArXiv, bioRxiv, Plos and others that are considered by the editorial committee) are accepted.

If an article is published totally or partially on the web pages of an event or conference, on a preprints server (Scielo Preprints, PMC, Plos, MedRxiv) or academic social network (ResearchGate), the authors must mention the provision in their submission. of the document on any of these servers, as well as its exact location.

Each issue is published in electronic version and is accessible through https://revdosdic.sld.cu/index.php/revdosdic, with open format Open Journal System (OJS), ISSN 2788-6786 and RNPS 2490.

2 of December Journal adheres to the uniform requirements for the submission of articles in biomedical journals - publication writing and editing (www.icmje.com) - and promotes the application of international standards or established good practices, both for the preparation of the articles and for publication.

OFFICIAL EVALUATION FORMS FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ARTICLES

Originals

Evaluation parameters

1. Relevance.

• Contributes to solve an important ongoing problem in the local, national, or international context.
• Opens up new perspectives to solve unresolved aspects.
• It is a contribution or an innovation.

Point out any other reason why you believe the results presented in the article are relevant.

2. TITLE

• Corresponds with the subject of the article
• Concise, understandable, and informative.
• Should not exceed 15 words.
• In Spanish and English.
• Must not include acronyms or abbreviations.
• If institutional names are used, they must be official and up to date.

3. SUMMARY

• Structured by sections.
• In Spanish and English.
• It has a maximum limit of 250 words.
• It includes main objectives, basic procedures used, results, and most important conclusions.
• It provides a proper idea of what the work is about.
• The writing is done in the third person.

4. KEYWORDS

• Concrete and representative of the semantic content of the document, both in the main and secondary contents.
• It should be ensured that they are between the limits of 3 to 10.
• In Spanish and English.

5. INTRODUCTION

• Presents brief, clear, and appropriate background information.
• Foundation of the problem.
• Clearly describes the objective of the work.

6. MATERIAL AND METHODS

• Define the type of research or study.
• Define the population or study group, as well as the criteria for inclusion, exclusion, and elimination.
• Describe the criteria and justification for sample selection if required.
• The analyzed variables are clearly described.
• Clearly exposes the methods of information collection and processing and analysis that were used.
• The statistical method is appropriate.
• The work can be reproduced by other researchers.
• State the specific ethical aspects for the study.

7. RESULTS

• Presentation aligned with the objectives of the work.
• Appropriate use of statistics (when required).
• Figures and tables highlight relevant results without repeating information between them.

8. DISCUSSION

• A critical review of the study results is carried out in light of the work published by the authors themselves or by other researchers in the national and international area.
• It explains the scope and limitations of the results.
• It describes the possible applicability and generalization of the results.

9. CONCLUSIONS

• They do not repeat results.
• They possess an appropriate degree of generalization.
• They respond to the objectives of the study and are consistent with the results and the discussion.

10. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

• It complies with the recommendations of the Association of Medical Journal Editors (Vancouver Style 2012).
• It is updated, with most corresponding to recently published works.
• A minimum of 75% of the last five years.
• Relevant national and international literature on the topic is represented.

11. TABLES

• The information they present justifies their existence.
• They do not repeat information already mentioned in the text.
• The title of the table corresponds appropriately to its content.

12. FIGURES

• They have an adequate quality.
• They are necessary and relevant.
• The figure captions correspond appropriately to them.

13. OTHER ASPECTS

• Quality of the presentation in terms of writing and spelling.
• It complies with accepted bioethical principles in our society.

Conclusions of the evaluation:

Title of the article:

Basis of the opinion:

Name and surname of the evaluator:

Date:

Review article

Evaluation parameters

1- TITLE

• Corresponds to the theme of the article.
• Concise and understandable.
• In Spanish and English.

2- SUMMARY

• Structured by sections.
• In Spanish and English.
• Includes main objectives, basic procedures used, results, and most important conclusions.
• Provides a proper idea of what the work is about.
• Has a maximum limit of 250 words.

3. KEY WORDS

• Concrete and representative.
• In Spanish and English.

4. INTRODUCTION

• Presents brief, clear, and appropriate background.
• Importance and relevance of the topic.
• Foundation of the scientific problem that originates the review.
• Clearly describes the objective of the work.
• Criteria and justification for the selection of the consulted sources.

5. DEVELOPMENT

• Presentation in accordance with the objectives of the work.
• Figures and tables highlight relevant aspects without repeating information.
• There is interpretation of the results indicated in the consulted literature.
• It contrasts the differences and similarities of the analyzed studies.
• Critique of the study's results is performed in light of the works published by the authors themselves or by other researchers.
• Describes the possible applicability and generalization of the results.Includes new aspects to consider.
• Points out or highlights the limitations or contributions of the review.

6. GLOBAL CONCLUSIONS

• They respond to the objectives of the study.
• It presents clear, concrete, and relevant conclusions.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

• They follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (Vancouver Style 2012).
• It is up to date, and most corresponds to works published recently.
• Relevant national and international literature on the topic is represented.

8. TABLES AND FIGURES

• The information they present justifies their existence.
• The title of the table corresponds appropriately to its content.
• They have adequate quality.
• The figure captions correspond appropriately to them.
• Information is not repeated in tables and figures.

Article Title:

Conclusions of the evaluation:

Basis of the opinion:

Name and surname of the evaluator:

Date:

Clinical Case

Evaluation parameters

1. TITLE

• Corresponds to the topic of the article.
• Concise and understandable.
• In Spanish and English.

2. SUMMARY

• Structured by sections.
• Provides an adequate idea of what the topic is about.
• Indicates the reasons for presenting the case.
• Appropriately summarizes the clinical case.
• Has a limit of 250 words.
• In Spanish and English.

3. KEYWORDS

• Concrete and representative.
• In Spanish and English.

4. INTRODUCTION

• Brief, clear, and appropriate background.
• Describes the objective and the reasons for presenting the case.

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE

• Adequately describes the background (family hereditary, personal pathological, non-pathological, surgical, gynecological-obstetric, etc.) related to the case.
• Indicates the onset, evolution, and current status of the condition.
• Summarizes the main clinical, laboratory, diagnostic, and imaging findings, highlighting those that make the case peculiar.
• Indicates the treatment employed.
• Notes the evolution of the case.

6. DISCUSSION

• Analyze and compare the main findings with those from other reported cases.
• Highlight the pathology/pathophysiology and its significance.
• Describe the difficulty in establishing the diagnosis and/or the treatment of the presented case.
• Discuss the differential diagnoses.
• Analyze the theories or hypotheses about the implications of the findings.

7. CONCLUSIONS

• The conclusions are clear.
• They justify the presentation of the case.

8. REFERENCES

• They are cited according to the guidelines for authors (Vancouver Style 2012).
• Relevant studies on the subject, both national and foreign, are cited.
• At least 40% of the last 5 years are presented.

9. TABLES

• A maximum of two tables.
• The information presented justifies their existence.
• If abbreviations or special symbols are used, their meaning is described.

10. FIGURES

• A maximum of three images.
• Quality of the figures.
• Need and relevance of the figures.
• Graphs and diagrams.
• The data presented do not repeat information already indicated in the text.
• They are adequate – what defines that?
• They protect the patient's identity and adhere to bioethical principles.
• The source from which the figures and photos were taken appears.

11. FIGURE CAPTIONS

• The description of the figure is appropriate.
• The captions correspond with the figures.
• The meaning of the abbreviations or symbols used in the figures is described.

12. GENERAL EVALUATION

• The topic is important.
• The article has scientific/practical/educational value.
• It complies with bioethical principles accepted in our society.

13. WRITING

• The use of abbreviations and acronyms is not excessive and does not hinder smooth reading or the understanding of the work.
• The meaning of the abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols used is described.
• There is clarity and coherence in the writing.
• The syntax and spelling are correct.

Article Title:

Conclusions of the evaluation:

Basis of the opinion:

Name and surname of the evaluator:

Date: