The minimum standard requirements of the Helix:

1. Paper must be written in English.
2. The length of the submitted paper must be 4-8 pages.
3. Use of a tool such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote for reference management and formatting, or manual citation and choose IEEE style
4. Make sure that the paper is prepared using Helix Paper format and Guidelines

GUIDELINES 

1. Manuscripts should be submitted in PDF as well as MS Word
2. The Manuscript should be Single Columned and Justified containing 4-8 Pages.
3. Follow line spacing of 1 and remove spacing before and after the paragraph.
4. Maintain the Normal page margin of 1inch (1”) each for Top, Bottom, Left and Right.
5. All the graphs, images, photographs, flow charts, should be labeled as figures.
6. The labeling of the figures should be done below the respective figure; Font TNR size 10 bold.
7. For all the downloaded figures (or the figures that are not originally created/drawn/photographed by the author), Picture courtesy (source) should be mentioned in brackets below the labeling of the figure.
8. All the Figures must be in JPEG Format with High Resolution.
9. The image of any Table/Equations/Algorithms should not be pasted; rather it should be written.
10. If pasting is the only option to include any Table/Equations/Algorithms in the manuscript, then label them as Figure and provide Picture courtesy (source).
11. The labeling of all the tables should be done on the top of the respective table; Font TNR size 10 bold.
12. Do not give any Footer of reference/explanations/author details/author photographs etc
13. Please declare competing interest of authors if any.

MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION
Title of the paper
1. This section should contain the title of the paper
2. Word Limit 5-20
3. Times New Roman, Word Size 16 Bold

Author information
1. Write full names of all the authors in Font Times New Roman (TNR), Size 10, and Bold.
2. Writing authors’ names should be in the sequence of their first name, middle name and last name and should not be prefixed by any title like Prof, Dr, Mr, Miss etc.
eg Sing San Jo, Ibrahim Ali, Charles Michel
3. All the authors should be numbered 1, 2, 3, 4…..on the top without any space before the name.
eg 1Sing San Jo, 2Ibrahim Ali, 3Charles Michel
4. The name of each author should be followed by a comma (,) and a space to demarcate it from next author and do not use the word ‘and’ before the last author name.
eg 1Sing San Jo, 2Ibrahim Ali, 3Charles Michel
5. The corresponding author should be indicated with a single asterisk (*) before his author number. The corresponding author can be the first, second or any other author.
eg *1Sing San Jo, 2Ibrahim Ali, 3Charles Michel
Or
eg 1Sing San Jo, *2Ibrahim Ali, 3Charles Michel
Or
eg 1Sing San Jo, 2Ibrahim Ali, *3Charles Michel
6. The affiliation should be written below the names of the authors in TNR Size 10
7. The affiliations of all the authors should be written in the sequence of Department name, College/Institute name, Road name/number, City name, State name, Country name (Pin code is optional)
8. Do not put any Full stop (.) at the end of affiliation.
9. If more than one author has same affiliation it should be written once only.
eg *1Sing San Jo, 2Ibrahim Ali, 3Charles Michel
1,3 Dept of xyz, xyz college of Science, XYZ Road, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Dept of abc, def ………………….. ……………., Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
10. Write the email IDs of all the authors in the same sequence of author number.
eg 1Sing San Jo, *2Ibrahim Ali, 3Charles Michel
1,3 Dept of xyz, xyz college of Science, XYZ Road, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Dept of abc, def ………………….. ……………., Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
1 singsan@gmail.com
*2 ibra@gmail.com
3 charles@gmail.com
11. For writing e mail IDs the Font is TNR 10 italics; do not underline or make it bold.
12. Provide only one ID of each author and do not write the phone/mobile number.

Abstract
1. It should contain a description of the subject and scope of coverage. In the case of research-oriented papers, major results and conclusions should be highlighted in brief.
2. Word limit 200-250
3. Font TNR size 10

Keywords
1. Each Keyword should be demarcated by comma (,).
2. Avoid usage of common/general terminologies and prepositions in keywords.
3. Keywords should be minimum 3 and maximum 6.
4. Font TNR italics size 10

Introduction
1. It should include the clear information regarding the theme of the paper. The complete background should be critical and specific to the work carried out which can be referred from various sources.
2. Word limit 600-650 words
3. Font TNR size 10

Research methodology
1. Description of the work plan, Samples, Laboratory Procedures/ Field survey/Tools and Database/ Algorithm utilized must be mentioned along with the purpose.
2. Word limit 600-650 words
3. Font TNR size 10

Results and Discussion
1. This section should contain the information regarding the results of the methods carried out with their interpretation, inference, explanation and discussion
2. Word limit 700-750 words
3. Font TNR size 10
4. The Research Methodology and Results and Discussion Heading names can be substituted with any other Headings as per the requirement of the paper type. However, all the methodologies, important findings and outcome should be covered in the customized headings.

Conclusion
1. The conclusion should highlight the major outcome and deliverable of the work. In review reports the Conclusion should give the gist and summary of the overall work. The future aspects can also be mentioned in the Conclusion.
2. Do not change the heading of this section to ‘Summary’ or ‘Discussion and Conclusion’ or ‘Conclusion and Future Aspects’ or in any other way.
3. Word limit 200-250
4. Font TNR size 10

Acknowledgement
This section should acknowledge the sponsors/Technical advisors/others. It is optional

References

A. Writing the references
1. All references should be mentioned alphabetically.
2. Do not put full stop (.) at the end of any reference.
3. Do not use inverted comma (“ ”), italics/bold font or different font size at any part of the reference.
4. Reference from any Authored Book should be written as:
a. Last names of all the authors demarcated by a comma (,) between two authors’ names; book name (year of publication), Chapter number, page numbers
b. The last author’s name should be demarcated by that of previous author by the word ‘and’ and not by a comma (,).
1. Lodish and Berk; Molecular Cell Biology (2010), Ch.3, Pg 21-28
5. Reference from any Paper of any Journal should be written as:
a. Last name followed by initials of first and middle names without space between them and demarcated by a comma (,) between two authors’ names; Title of paper; Name of journal (year of publication), volume number (issue number, if any), page numbers; DOI /PMID if available
b. If there are many authors in any reference write the names of first, second and third author only followed by et al (in italics)
2. Tung YT, Chen HL, Yen CC et al; Bovine lactoferrin inhibits lung cancer growth through suppression of both inflammation and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor; J Dairy Sci. (2013), Vol 96(4), Pg 2095-2106; DoI 10.3168/jds.2012-6153
6. Reference from any article in an Edited Book should be written as:
a. Last name followed by initials of first and middle names without space between them and demarcated by a comma (,) between two authors’ names; Title of paper; In: Last name followed by initials of first and middle names without space between them and demarcated by a comma (,) between two editors’ names, editors; Title of the book; name of publisher (year of publication); page numbers
b. If there are many authors/editors in the reference write the names of first, second and third author/editor only followed by et al (in italics) at respective place.
3. Mettam GR, Adams LB; How to prepare an electronic version of your article; In: Jones BS, Smith RZ, editors; Introduction to the electronic age; New York E-Publishing Inc (2009); Pg 281–304
7. Reference from any Website should be written as:
Name of the website; URL
4. World Health Organization; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer

B. Citing the references
8. All the references must be cited in the manuscript either by their number or by the author name and year. Do not keep any reference in this section that is not cited in the manuscript.
9. While citing any reference by its serial number, put the serial number at the end of the respective sentence after full stop within Square bracket.
Eg Oranges are rich in Vitamin C.[1]Carrots are rich in Vitamin A.
10. While citing any reference by author name either write the author name et al, year at the beginning of the respective sentence or at the end of the respective sentence within small bracket before the full stop.
Eg As per David et al, 2016 Oranges are rich in Vitamin C.
Or
Oranges are rich in Vitamin C (David et al, 2016).
11. Do not club both the ways of citation at any place. For example do not write as follows
As per David et al, 2016 Oranges are rich in Vitamin C.[1]
Or
Oranges are rich in Vitamin C (David et al, 2016).[1]
Or
As per (1) Oranges are rich in Vitamin C.
Or
Oranges are rich in Vitamin C (1).
12. However both the ways of citation can be used at different places within the manuscript.
Eg Oranges are rich in Vitamin C.[1] Singh et al, 2018 have concluded that Carrots are rich in Vitamin A.

APR (Article Processing Charges)

Presently there is no APR to publish in Helix.

Reporting standards 

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.  Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such. 

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. 

Originality and plagiarism

 The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another paper as the author own paper to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

 An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. 

Acknowledgment of sources 

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. 

Hazards and human or animal subjects

 If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. The authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible. 

Fundamental errors in published works

 When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper. 

Duties of the Editorial Board

These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal Helix is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. 

Fair play

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality 
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of reviewers

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness 
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality 
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. 

Standards of objectivity

 Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.