Research Articles
The Journal of Experimental Biology receives many more manuscripts than it can publish. In recent years, the number of published manuscripts constitutes only about 40% of those submitted. We therefore urge reviewers to recommend acceptance of articles only if they satisfy the criteria below and represent work that will be of high interest to all experimental biologists.
(1) The single most important criterion for publication in The Journal of Experimental Biology is significant advancement of scientific knowledge. In general, this means that a manuscript should pose and test a significant hypothesis or answer an important question that is relevant to basic issues of experimental biology.
(2) The journal does not have room for descriptive papers that do not make clear their broader mechanistic and scientific relevance, or articles establishing a method, technique or cell line without, in addition, providing a significant application of the method. Only under compelling circumstances will an Editor decide that an exception to this guideline is warranted.
(3) The manuscript should be of general importance to the field of comparative physiology.
Manuscripts receiving conflicting rankings are read by a third reviewer, after which an editorial decision is reached.
Commentaries
Commentaries are commissioned, non-exhaustive review-type articles that are aimed at students and non-specialist readers with the aim of informing and inspiring those with a limited background in a subject. Commentaries can also be a venue for new and challenging ideas. Commissioned authors are requested that Commentaries are between 1500 and 4500 words long with no more than 50 references.
We urge reviewers to consider the following when reviewing a Commentary article:
(1) does it provide a satisfactory introductory review for non-specialist readers?
(2) does it adequately summarize the current state of knowledge in a given field for readers seeking an introduction to the topic?
Unconventional and possibly controversial ideas can be accepted in Commentaries when clearly labelled as such by the authors.
The News and Views Editor will edit the Commentary after peer review to address the Commentary's accessibility to the target audience.
Reviews
Reviews in The Journal of Experimental Biology are predominantly commissioned articles that aim to provide a timely, insightful and accessible overview of a particular field or aspect of experimental biology research. Longer reviews of ~5000 words provide a broad overview of a subject, by bringing together data from different fields and organisms, while shorter ones of ~3500-4500 words can be more focused on a particular topic.
Although authors are free to express their opinions in a review, they are asked to provide counterbalancing viewpoints where appropriate and to ensure that opinion and fact are clearly distinguishable.
There are a number of points that we would like you to keep in mind while reviewing this article:
(1) Does the title clearly reflect what the article is about?
(2) Are the author's arguments logically and coherently made? Are counterbalancing viewpoints acknowledged and discussed?
(3) Does the author provide new insight into the topic being reviewed?
(4) Is the article adequately and appropriately referenced?
(5) Is the article too long? If so, what could be removed or condensed?
(6) Is the information provided in figures, figure legends, boxes and tables clear and accurate?
Please note, that it is hard for us to reject manuscripts owing to a reviewer's lack of general enthusiasm for an article. If you have specific concerns or objections, please do make these clear in your report.
|
