HINDAWI.

COM
Author Guidelines
Language Editing
Hindawi has partnered with Editage to provide an English-language editing service to authors prior to submission. Authors that wish
to use this service will receive a 10% discount on all editing services provided by Editage. To find out more information or get a quote,
please click here.
Submission
Manuscripts should be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript through the online Manuscript Tracking System. Only
electronic PDF (.pdf) or Word (.doc, .docx, .rtf) files can be submitted through the MTS, and there is no page limit. Submissions by
anyone other than one of the authors will not be accepted. The submitting author takes responsibility for the manuscript during
submission and peer review. If for some technical reason submission through the MTS is not possible, the author can
contact tswj@hindawi.com for support.
Terms of Submission
Manuscripts must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and are only being considered by
this journal. The submitting author is responsible for ensuring that the article’s publication has been approved by all the other
coauthors. It is also the submitting author’s responsibility to ensure that the article has all necessary institutional approvals. Only an
acknowledgment from the editorial office officially establishes the date of receipt. Further correspondence and proofs will be sent to
the author(s) before publication, unless otherwise indicated. It is a condition of submission that the authors permit editing of the
manuscript for readability. All inquiries concerning the publication of accepted manuscripts should be addressed
to tswj@hindawi.com. All submissions are bound by the Hindawi terms of service.
Peer Review
All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet the standards of academic excellence. If approved by the editor,
submissions will be considered by peer reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors.
Our Research Integrity team will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer review, for example, on submissions with serious
ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the academic editor before deciding on appropriate
actions, including but not limited to: recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by additional editors, and declining to
further consider a submission.
Concurrent Submissions
In order to ensure sufficient diversity within the authorship of the journal, authors will be limited to having two manuscripts under
review at any point in time. If an author already has two manuscripts under review in the journal, they will need to wait until the
review process of at least one of these manuscripts is complete before submitting another manuscript for consideration. This policy
does not apply to Editorials or other non-peer reviewed manuscript types.
Article Processing Charges
The journal is Open Access. Article Processing Charges (APCs) allow the publisher to make articles immediately available online to
anyone to read and reuse upon publication. For more details, please visit the Article Processing Charges information page.
Units of Measurement
Units of measurement should be presented simply and concisely using the International System of Units (SI).
Article Types
The journal will consider the following article types:
Research Articles
Research articles should present the results of an original research study. These manuscripts should describe how the research project
was conducted and provide a thorough analysis of the results of the project. Systematic reviews may be submitted as research
articles.
Clinical Studies
A clinical study presents the methodology and results of a study that was performed within a clinical setting. These studies include
both clinical trials and retrospective analyses of a body of existing cases. In all cases, clinical studies should include a description of the
patient group that was involved, along with a thorough explanation of the methodology used in the study and the results that were
obtained.
When publishing clinical trials, Hindawi aims to comply with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors (ICMJE) on trial registration. Therefore, authors are requested to register the clinical trial presented in the manuscript in a
public trial registry and include the trial registration number at the end of the abstract. Trials initiated after July 1, 2005, must be
registered prospectively before patient recruitment has begun. For trials initiated before July 1, 2005, the trial must be registered
before submission.
Reviews
A review article provides an overview of the published literature in a particular subject area.
Formatting
An optional research article manuscript template can be downloaded here. We recommend that all manuscripts follow the structure
below:
Title and Authorship Information
The following information should be included:
 Manuscript title
 Full author names
 Full institutional mailing addresses
 Email addresses
Abstract
The manuscript should contain an abstract. The abstract should be self-contained, citation-free, and should not exceed 200 words.
Introduction
This section should be succinct, with no subheadings.
Materials and Methods
This part should contain sufficient detail that would enable all procedures to be repeated. It can be divided into subsections if several
methods are described.
Results and Discussion
This section may be divided into subsections or may be combined.
Main Text (Review only)
This section may be divided into subsections or may be combined.
Conclusions
This should clearly explain the main conclusions of the article, highlighting its importance and relevance.
Data Availability (excluding Review articles)
This section should describe how readers may access the data underlying the findings of the study.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors must declare all relevant interests that could be perceived as conflicting. Authors should explain why each interest may
represent a conflict. If no conflicts exist, the authors should state this. Submitting authors are responsible for coauthors declaring
their interests.
Funding Statement
Authors should state how the research described in their article was funded, including grant numbers if applicable.
Acknowledgments
All acknowledgments (if any) should be included at the very end of the manuscript before the references. Anyone who made a
contribution to the research or manuscript, but who is not a listed author, should be acknowledged (with their permission).
References
Authors may submit their references in any style. If accepted, these will be reformatted in Chicago style by Hindawi. Authors are
responsible for ensuring that the information in each reference is complete and accurate. All references should be numbered
consecutively in the order of their first citation. Citations of references in the text should be identified using numbers in square
brackets e.g., “as discussed by Smith [9]”; “as discussed elsewhere [9, 10]”. All references should be cited within the text and uncited
references will be removed.
Preparation of Figures
Upon submission of an article, authors should include all figures and tables in the PDF file of the manuscript. Figures and tables should
not be submitted in separate files. If the article is accepted, authors will be asked to provide the source files of the figures. Each figure
should be supplied in a separate electronic file. All figures should be cited in the manuscript in a consecutive order. Figures should be
supplied in either vector art formats (Illustrator, EPS, WMF, FreeHand, CorelDraw, PowerPoint, Excel, etc.) or bitmap formats
(Photoshop, TIFF, GIF, JPEG, etc.). Bitmap images should be of 300 dpi resolution at least unless the resolution is intentionally set to a
lower level for scientific reasons. If a bitmap image has labels, the image and labels should be embedded in separate layers.
Preparation of Tables
Tables should be cited consecutively in the text. Every table must have a descriptive title and if numerical measurements are given,
the units should be included in the column heading. Vertical rules should not be used.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials are the additional parts to a manuscript, such as audio files, video clips, or datasets that might be of interest
to readers. Authors can submit one file of supplementary material along with their manuscript through the Manuscript Tracking
System. If there is more than one file, they can be uploaded as a .ZIP file.
A section titled “Supplementary Material” should be included before the references list with a concise description for each
supplementary material file. Supplementary materials are not modified by our production team. Authors are responsible for providing
the final supplementary materials files that will be published along with the article.
Proofs
Corrected proofs must be returned to the publisher within two to three days of receipt. The publisher will do everything possible to
ensure prompt publication.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the
original work is properly cited.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified,
does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations. The submitting author is responsible for
securing any permissions needed for the reuse of copyrighted materials included in the manuscript.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the
authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher
makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Data Availability
Hindawi encourages all authors to share the data underlying the findings of their manuscripts. Data sharing allows researchers to
verify the results of an article, replicate the analysis, and conduct secondary analyses.
Hindawi requires authors to include a “Data Availability” statement with all manuscripts. This statement should describe how readers
can access the data supporting the conclusions of the study, and clearly outline the reasons why unavailable data cannot be released.
If the authors use third party data from another source and therefore do not own the data themselves, this source must be credited
as appropriate.
When the data are not freely available, the authors should provide an explanation and details of any restrictions on access.
Acceptable justifications for restricting access may include legal and ethical concerns, such as third-party rights, patient privacy, and
commercial confidentiality.
Authors may choose to make data available upon request, through a data access committee, institutional review board, or the
authors themselves. They should name who should be contacted to request the data (e.g., the ethics or data access committee) and
provide appropriate details.
Authors should follow any mandates or restrictions on data sharing set out by their institutions and funding agencies. If the data
belong to an institution or third party, the author must secure permission to publish and/or share the data and provide appropriate
attribution. Authors should anonymize data to protect privacy, where necessary.
Authors may include some data within the article, for example in tables or supplementary files, but Hindawi prefers that
comprehensive data sets are also deposited in an appropriate public repository. Suitable repositories allow data to be hosted and
shared in machine-readable formats, enabling compatibility, preservation, discovery, and reuse. Laboratory websites or personal data
stores are not sufficient for these purposes. The authors should cite the deposited dataset within the article.
Authors may search for an appropriate repository at: http://www.re3data.org/.
If datasets are critical for the review process, authors must provide them to the editor upon request, regardless of whether the
authors intend to share them more widely upon publication.
We provide some illustrative examples of “Data Availability” statements below. This list is not exhaustive, and authors may find that
they require a statement different from the samples listed here:
“The genotyping data generated during this study have been deposited in the Dryad Digital Repository (Doi:10.5061/dryad.xxxxx) [1].
All other data arising from this study are contained within the manuscript and supplementary information files.”
In the reference list: [1] A. N. Author, B. N. Author, C. N. Author et al., “Dataset title,” Dryad Digital Repository,
Doi:10.5061/dryad.xxxxx, 2016.
“The data used to support the findings of this study were provided by xxxxxx under license, and so cannot be made freely available.
Access to these data will be considered by the author upon request, with permission of xxxxx.”
“The datasets used to support this study are currently under embargo while the research findings are commercialized. Requests for
data, 12 months after initial publication, will be considered by the corresponding author.”
Funding Statement
Authors must state how the research and publication of their article was funded, by naming financially supporting body(s) (written
out in full) followed by associated grant number(s) in square brackets (if applicable), for example: “This work was supported by the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]; the National Science Foundation [grant number zzzz];
and a Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant”.
If the research did not receive specific funding, but was performed as part of the employment of the authors, please name this
employer. If the funder was involved in the manuscript writing, editing, approval, or decision to publish, please declare this.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest (COIs, also known as ‘competing interests’) occur when issues outside research could be reasonably perceived to
affect the neutrality or objectivity of the work or its assessment. For more information, see our publication ethics policy. Authors must
declare all potential interests – whether or not they actually had an influence – in a ‘Conflicts of Interest’ section, which should
explain why the interest may be a conflict. If there are none, the authors should state “The author(s) declare(s) that there is no
conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.” Submitting authors are responsible for coauthors declaring their interests.
Declared conflicts of interest will be considered by the editor and reviewers and included in the published article.
Authors must declare current or recent funding (including for Article Processing Charges) and other payments, goods or services that
might influence the work. All funding, whether a conflict or not, must be declared in the “Funding Statement”. The involvement of
anyone other than the authors who 1) has an interest in the outcome of the work; 2) is affiliated to an organization with such an
interest; or 3) was employed or paid by a funder, in the commissioning, conception, planning, design, conduct, or analysis of the work,
the preparation or editing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish must be declared.
Microarray Data Submission
Before publication, the microarray data should be deposited in an appropriate database such as Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) or
Array Express, and an entry name or accession number must be included in the manuscript prior to its publication. Microarray data
should be MIAME compliant. During the reviewing process, submitting authors are committed to provide the editor and the reviewers
handling his/her manuscript with the login information by which they can access this information in the database.
Small Molecule Single Crystal X-Ray Diffraction Data
We recommend the use of SHELXL (2014 or later) for data processing, which embeds both the results file and structure factors into
the finalized crystallographic information file (CIF) (see http://journals.iucr.org/c/services/shelxl.html for more information).
We strongly encourage that all new small molecule single crystal X-ray diffraction data be deposited with the Cambridge
Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC; https://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/deposit) prior to submission of your article. The CCDC number(s)
assigned to your structure(s) should be listed in the “Data Availability” statement, which permits retrieval of the crystallographic data
for peer review purposes, and allows readers to find them once the article is published.
We would also ask you to check the integrity of your data using the IUCr's checkCIF service (available here: http://checkcif.iucr.org/),
and address significant unresolved problems (typically all A- and B-alerts) in the Validation Response Form portion of the CIF. The
generation of the checkCIF report and the response to A- and B-alerts can also all be done through the deposition to the CCDC.
If you choose to not deposit your data in the CCDC prior to submission, you must upload your CIF (and RES and HKL/FCF files if
necessary), along with a PDF of the checkCIF report (link above) as Supporting Information, at the same as uploading your manuscript.
At acceptance, you should then submit your crystal data to an appropriate repository, and update the “Data Availability” statement in
your manuscript to indicate how authors can retrieve the data.
The Data Availability section should reference crystallographic data in the following format: “Crystallographic data for the structures
reported in this manuscript have been deposited with the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre under the CCDC numbers: xxxxxx
(Compound name 1), xxxxxx (Compound name 2), and xxxxxx (Compound name 3). Copies of these data can be obtained free of
charge from http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif.”
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
When publishing manuscripts which describe a new zoological taxon name, Hindawi aims to comply with the requirements of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Therefore, for all manuscripts that include the naming of a new
zoological taxon, authors are requested to contact Zoobank, the online registration system for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, to obtain a Life Science Identifier (LSID). Moreover, authors are requested to insert the following text in the
“Materials and Methods” section, in a subsection to be called “Nomenclatural Acts”:
The new names contained in this article are available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This work and the
nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank. Zoobank Life Science Identifier (LSID) for this publication is:
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub: XXXXXXX. The LSID registration and any associated information can be viewed in a web browser by adding
the LSID to the prefix “http://zoobank.org/.”
Ethical Guidelines
In any studies on human or animal subjects, the following ethical guidelines must be observed. For any experiments on humans, all
work must be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Manuscripts describing experimental work which
carries a risk of harm to human subjects must include a statement that the experiment was conducted with the human subjects’
understanding and consent, as well as a statement that the responsible Ethical Committee has approved the experiments. In the case
of any animal experiments, the authors must provide a full description of any anesthetic or surgical procedure used, as well as
evidence that all possible steps were taken to avoid animal suffering at each stage of the experiment.
SCOPUS.COM
Content Policy and Selection
You need quality content, and Scopus delivers: An overview for individual researchers
For your research to be the best that it can be, you need access to the most up-to-date and highest quality interdisciplinary content
out there. This is why Scopus has a clearly stated selection policy and an internationally acclaimed board of selection experts so you
can be sure that what you see on Scopus meets your high standards.
While most of the information provided on this page is written for publishers wishing to have their content included on Scopus, we
invite you to read on. We hope you'll get a sense of the level of scrutiny and focus on authority that is the hallmark of Scopus.
Continuously reviewing and expanding Scopus: What publishers need to know
As the largest indexer of global research content, Scopus includes titles from more than 5,000 publishers worldwide. These journals,
books and conference papers are visible to millions of Scopus users, who in turn read your content and then cite it in their papers, in
grant applications and reports, or in patent applications. To ensure that Scopus serves the broad information needs of researchers,
our Content Selection & Advisory Board(CSAB) continuously reviews suggestions and publishing programs in order to expand our
content listings.
Scopus helps to:
 Increase the visibility of your publication(s)
 Give you access to a global audience of researchers and experts for peer review programs
 Track the performance of your publication(s)
 Monitor competitive publications.
Title evaluation process
We're proud of our transparent selection process and independent review board. The international experts on our content selection
and advisory board continually review new titles using both quantitative and qualitative measures. Only serial titles may be suggested
to the content selection and advisory board for inclusion on Scopus. Serials include journals, book series or conference series.
Suggestions may be made by publishers or editors of a title. Individual researchers and librarians can also suggest titles for Scopus, but
these suggestions need the support from the publisher and/or editor. Before suggesting a serial title, please:
 Check the current Scopus title lists to be sure it's not already indexed: Journals list
 Read the board's statement: A General Introduction to Scopus and the Work of the Content Selection & Advisory Board
 Review the selection criteria below
 Then use the Scopus Title Suggestion Form
 Learn more about FAQs for the Role of an Editor
 Read the FAQs for the Content Selection Process
The individual who suggests a title and the publisher (if different) will be informed about the outcome of the review and reason(s) for
the decision. You can also track the progress of the evaluation process by entering the unique Tracking ID provided at the time of
submission into the Title Evaluation Tracker.
Journal selection criteria
To be considered for review, all journal titles should meet all of these minimum criteria:
 Consist of peer-reviewed content and have a publicly available description of the peer review process
 Be published on a regular basis and have an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) as registered with the ISSN
International Centre
 Have content that is relevant for and readable by an international audience, meaning: have references in Roman script and
have English language abstracts and titles
 Have a publicly available publication ethics and publication malpractice statement
CSAB members have deep subject matter expertise, and are committed to actively seeking out and selecting literature that meets the
needs and standards of the research community that they represent. Journals eligible for review by the CSAB will be evaluated on the
following criteria in five categories:
Category Criteria
Convincing editorial policy
Type of peer review
Diversity in geographical distribution of editors
Journal Policy Diversity in geographical distribution of authors
Academic contribution to the field
Clarity of abstracts
Quality of and conformity to the stated aims and scope of the journal
Content Readability of articles
Citedness of journal articles in Scopus
Journal Standing Editor standing
Publishing Regularity No delays or interruptions in the publication schedule
Full journal content available online
English language journal home page available
Online Availability Quality of journal home page
Title Re-evaluation
The quality of our content is paramount for Scopus. In addition to journals undergoing a rigorous evaluation and selection processes
prior to acceptance into Scopus, they must also demonstrate the ability to maintain their quality status year over year.
To determine journal quality, Scopus runs the annual Re-evaluation program which identifies outlier and underperforming journals in
three different ways:
1. Scopus identifies underperforming journals for Re-evaluation by using six metrics and benchmarks which all journals in the
database must meet year after year. If a journal does not meet any of the six benchmarks for two consecutive years, the
CSAB will re-evaluate the journal based on the Scopus title selection criteria with as potential outcome discontinuation of the
journal its forward flow from Scopus.
2. Scopus identifies outlier journals for Re-evaluation by running the data analytics tool ‘Radar’ on an annual basis. This tool
identifies journals demonstrating outlier behaviors such as sudden and exponential article output growth, unexplainable and
sudden changes to affiliation country, or high journal self-citation rates, amongst others. All journals identified by the Radar
tool will be re-evaluated by the CSAB in the year of identification. CSAB review is based on the Scopus title selection
criteria and may result in discontinuation of the journal’s forward flow from Scopus.
3. Journals for which users, buyers or stakeholders have publication concerns will be added to Re-evaluation if the claim is
identified as legitimate. The journal will be re-evaluated by the CSAB in the year of identification based on the Scopus title
selection criteria with as potential outcome discontinuation of the journal its forward flow from Scopus.
1. Metrics and benchmarks
Once a year, Scopus analyzes the performance of all journals in the database. All journals must meet the below six metrics and
benchmarks:
Metric Benchmark not met when Explanation
≥200% compared to the average in its The journal has a self-citation rate two times higher, or more, whe
Self-citation rate subject fields journals in its subject field.
≤50% compared to the average in its The journal received half the number of citations, or less, when co
Total citation rate subject fields in its subject field.
≤50% compared to the average in its The journal has a CiteScore half or less than the average CiteScore
CiteScore subject fields journals in its subject field.
≤50% compared to the average in its The journal produced half, or less, the number of articles, when c
Number of articles subject fields in its subject field.
Number of full-text clicks on ≤50% compared to the average in its The journal's full texts are used half as much, or less, when compa
Scopus.com subject fields subject field.
≤50% compared to the average in its The journal's abstracts are used half as much, or less, when comp
Abstract usage on Scopus.com subject fields subject field.
If a journal does not meet any of the six benchmarks, Scopus will inform the journal of its quality performance and will allow the
journal one year to improve at least one metric. If one year later the journal could improve at least one metric, the journal will not be
part of Re-evaluation that year. However, if a journal does not meet all of the six benchmarks for two consecutive years, it will be
flagged for re-evaluation by the independent Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB).
The review criteria for re-evaluation are identical to the Scopus content selection criteria used for newly suggested titles. Upon
completion of the re-evaluation process, the CSAB will decide to either continue a journal’s coverage or to discontinue the forward
flow of the journal its coverage in Scopus (content covered in Scopus prior to the re-evaluation completion will remain in Scopus).
For more details on the re-evaluation metrics title workflow and timelines, please view: Scopus Re-evaluation Workflow and
Timelines (pdf 493 kb).
2. Radar
In 2017 the Radar tool was launched, which is an Elsevier-made data analytics algorithm trained to identify outlier journal behavior in
the Scopus database. Outlier journal examples include rapid and unexplainable changes to number of articles published or
unexplainable changes in geographical diversity of authors or affiliations. Other features that the algorithm considers are self-citation
rate and publication concerns, amongst others. The tool improves continuously by new examples or rules added to it and will initially
run once a year checking the full Scopus journal base of around 22,800 titles for outlier behavior.
Journals flagged by the Radar tool will be added to the Re-evaluation process and will be re-evaluated by the CSAB in the year of
identification by the Radar tool. The review criteria for re-evaluation are identical to the Scopus content selection criteria used for
newly suggested titles. Upon completing the re-evaluation process, the CSAB will decide to either continue a journal’s coverage or to
discontinue the forward flow of the journal coverage in Scopus (content covered in Scopus prior to the re-evaluation completion will
remain in Scopus).
3. Publication concerns
A journal can also be flagged for Re-evaluation based on publication concerns on either publisher or journal level. Concerns for such
journals are identified by Scopus, or flagged to Scopus by the research community and are taken seriously. If the concern is legitimate,
the title will be added to the Re-evaluation program and re-evaluated by the CSAB in the year of identification of the publication
concern. The review criteria for re-evaluation are identical to the Scopus content selection criteria used for newly suggested titles.
Upon completing the re-evaluation process, the CSAB will decide to either continue a journal’s coverage or to discontinue the forward
flow of the journal coverage in Scopus (content covered in Scopus prior to the re-evaluation completion will remain in Scopus).
Titles discontinued from Scopus via the Re-evaluation process can be identified via the Discontinued Sources List
For questions, please contact re-evaluation@scopus.com
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statements
Publication malpractice is an unfortunate occurrence in the world of scholarly literature. It happens in all subject areas and in all
jurisdictions; and few journals or books are immune. The prevention of publication malpractice is the responsibility of every author,
editor, reviewer, publisher and institution.
Scopus requires that every journal we index has clear and publicly available statements of publication ethics and publication
malpractice. Scopus will hold each publisher listed in the database accountable for the performance and compliance with these
policies. Scopus does not mandate any specific wording of publication ethics and publication malpractice statements, but notes that:
 Major publishers already publish comprehensive statements of compliance on their websites. See Elsevier for an example.
 A number of industry organizations publish comprehensive guidelines and advice that can be readily adopted by any
publisher. Such notable organizations include:
o Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
o World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
o International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
o Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)
 Guidelines for what a Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement should adhere to (PEMS)
For more information on the importance of Ethics in Research and Publication, see http://www.ethics.elsevier.com or watch
this webinar.
Scope and selection criteria for books
Scopus covers scholarly books that represent fully-referenced, original research or literature reviews.
1. Subject areas: Focus on Social sciences and Arts & Humanities (A&H), but also Science, Technology & Medicine (STM)
2. Book types: Monographs, edited volumes, major reference works, graduate level text books
3. NOT in scope: Dissertations, undergraduate-level text books, Atlas, Yearbook, Biography, Popular science books, manuals,
etc.
Book selection is via a publisher-based approach (no individual book suggestions are considered). As the selection is evaluated on a
per publisher basis, the Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) is not involved in the evaluation of this content type. A
dedicated group of highly educated individuals are responsible for the publisher selection process. For those selected publishers, all
books deemed "in scope " will be covered.
Publishers can suggest their books for Scopus coverage via the Scopus Books Suggestion form. Books will only be considered for
evaluation if they meet the following minimum criteria:
1. All books must contain ISBNs.
2. All books must be available in digital format (PDF or xml).
3. All metadata must be captured in ONIX or MARC.
4. All metadata must contain BIC or BISAC subject area codes.
5. All book content must be in the English language.
6. Book types in scope are: Monographs, edited volumes, major reference works, and graduate level text books.
Those book lists from publishers that meet the minimum criteria will be reviewed according to the following selection criteria:
1. Reputation and impact of the publisher
2. Size and subject area of the books list (subject area(s) Arts & Humanities and/or Social Sciences are preferred).
3. Availability and format of the book content
4. Publication policy and editorial mission
5. Quality of published book content
A dedicated team will manually review all suggested books one time per year, during the summer. All suggested books will be
evaluated based upon the above described selection criteria. Scopus will contact books publisher with the outcome of the books
evaluation.
For questions, please contact: booksuggestion@scopus.com
Conference papers selection criteria
Conference material is an important additional component to the scientific literature in many fields, but particularly in the fields of
engineering, computer sciences, physical sciences and mathematics. Scopus covers only full-text conference papers, and currently
there are close to 8 million conference papers from nearly 100,000 conference events included in the database. Conference paper
selection is done based on the relevancy and quality of the conference in relation to the subject field. Priority is given to conference
materials published by reputable organizations and publishers in relevant subject fields. Scopus does not consider individual
conference material suggestions to be included in the database. Serial conference titles that have a registered ISSN can be suggested
for Scopus coverage via the above mentioned title evaluation process
PEERJ.COM
Preparing your submission
1
PeerJ does not accept formal pre-submission inquiries and submissions should not be accompanied by a cover letter (there are fields
in our submission form which replace the need for a cover letter).
2
Poorly written manuscripts will be returned to the author. Your submission must be written in clear, unambiguous, technically correct
English. Authors are responsible for ensuring their submission is free from spelling errors; grammatical errors; unclear expression etc.
We strongly advise that you use a spell checker before submitting. If you need help improving the language of your submission, please
seek out suitable colleagues or an external editing service before submitting.
3
Include line numbers, an approx. 2.5cm margin on all edges, and 12 point Times font for readability. This makes your review pdf easy
to read, and your editor and reviewers very happy!
4
Files typically expected:
- Manuscript text
- Any figures
- Any tables
- Any raw data or code
- Any supplemental information files
5
Your reviewers must have your raw data or code to review. Please submit:
 As a link to a repository where the data is accessible.
 Uploaded as a supplemental file.
Data should be provided in an appropriate, machine-readable format. Note: formats such as PDF, Powerpoint, and images of tables
etc. are not considered suitable for raw data sharing.
Generally however, there are very few circumstances in which we can accept a manuscript without raw data. It is not required if your
submission does not deal with raw data or code.
Some examples of invalid reasons for not submitting raw data or code:
 The data is owned by a third-party who have not given permission to publish it within this article.
Please obtain permission from the owners to include the raw data, or provide documentation that the owners will not allow
publication of the raw data on the grounds of privacy or safety.
 The raw data is too large.
Please upload the raw data to an online repository (e.g. Figshare, Dryad etc).
6
TeX/LaTeX users should submit a single PDF document including line numbers to be used for peer review as the "Manuscript" file, and
also upload the original source files in the "Primary files" section (select "LaTeX Source Files" from the drop down menu to set the file
type).
We do not require the use of any specific LaTeX style file; PeerJ's styles will be applied to the document during production.
PeerJ recommends the use of Overleaf - a free online service that provides a user friendly interface for the preparation of LaTeX
manuscripts. Users of Overleaf can use a standard PeerJ template and can initiate their submission to PeerJ or PeerJ Preprints with a
single click. Note: the use of Overleaf for a PeerJ submission is NOT a requirement, but it might just make your life easier!
7
Important: You can only submit a manuscript document with embedded figures, tables and legends, if you are a LaTeX author. All
other authors must submit a text-only manuscript and separate figure and table files. This is a recent change designed to improve the
quality of your article's review process.

Submitting
First start your submission, then complete the submission screens:

Use the checklist on every screen:

1Read the directions and enter your article info.
2Use the checklist to make sure everything is done.
When all the checks are good, save and continue.

Using the checklists will reduce the chances that your manuscript is returned for changes, which means a faster time to publish.
Submissions via External Services (e.g. bioRxiv, Overleaf)
PeerJ welcomes submissions directly from external services. We have a "one click" submission route from bioRxiv, Overleaf,
and Peerage of Science and we encourage authors to take advantage of these linkups. Once your submission is transferred to us, staff
will initiate the submission for you and contact you to complete the final information and confirm your submission.

Consideration of Prior Peer Reviews

PeerJ is happy to use prior peer-reviews which have been conducted on a manuscript (for example if it was reviewed by another
journal). Doing so can often increase the speed of our decision, and reduce additional rounds of review.
To go this route, authors should alert us in the "Notes to Staff" field that they have prior reviews and they should upload them as
an external reviews file type when submitting. They should also provide a document detailing what changes they have made (if any) in
light of these reviews. Staff will then contact the other journal to confirm that your reviews are complete and unedited, and to
request permission to use them.
Basic Manuscript Organization
1
The Author Cover Page listing all authors and affiliations must be the first page of the manuscript document you submit (view
example). To include:
 Article title
 Authors
o First names (or first initials in combination with full middle names)
o Middle names (or initials, if used)
o Last names (surname, family name)
 Affiliations (indicate multiple affiliations, or current addresses where appropriate)
o Department, university, or organizational affiliation
o Location: city, state/province (if applicable)
o Country
 Corresponding Author
o First and Last name
o Email address
OR
 If the article was authored by a consortium, list full names and full affiliations in the intended order for publication in the
acknowledgements.
2
A standard front page is added to your reviewing manuscript when it is generated by the system. Please make sure that the author
order and details on this standard front page (entered by you in our online submission forms) exactly match that in your Author Cover
Page described above.
3
Contributors who do not qualify under ICMJE authorship guidelines should not be listed as authors. They should be included in the
Acknowledgements and should agree to being acknowledged.

Standard Sections
PeerJ covers a wide range of fields and although we can accommodate a variety of ‘standard sections’, we recommend that the
following Standard Sections, in this order, are used wherever possible. Note: Short manuscripts may not require all sub-sections.
Author Cover Page (see above)
Abstract
 No more than approx. 500 words (or 3,000 characters).
 Headings in structured abstracts should be bold and followed by a period. Each heading should begin a new paragraph. For
example:
Background. The background section text goes here. Next line for new section.
Methods. The methods section text goes here.
Results. The results section text goes here.
Discussion. The discussion section text goes here.
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
 Should not be used to acknowledge funders – that information will appear in a separate Funding Statement on the published
paper.
 As a matter of courtesy, we suggest you inform anyone whom you acknowledge.
References

For Literature Review Articles we recommend the following Standard Sections:

Author Cover Page (see above)
Abstract (see above)
Introduction
 Describe the field being reviewed; note the reason(s) for needing this review; and detail the relevance to readers of PeerJ in
both the immediate field and and any associated areas.
 Cite any previous reviews of the field.
Survey Methodology
 Describe the process by which you ensured that your coverage of the literature was comprehensive and unbiased.
Subheadings
 We recommend that you subdivide your article into a small number of major topic areas.
Conclusions
 Identify unresolved questions / gaps / future directions.
Acknowledgements (see above)
References
Also read the policies for literature reviews.

Reference Format
Formatting Tip
We want authors spending their time doing science, not formatting.
We include reference formatting as a guide to make it easier for editors, reviewers, and preprint readers, but will not strictly enforce
the specific formatting rules as long as the full citation is clear.
Styles will be normalized by us if your manuscript is accepted.
PeerJ uses the "Name. Year" style with an alphabetized reference list.
In-text citations
 For three or fewer authors, list all author names (e.g. Smith, Jones & Johnson, 2004). For four or more authors, abbreviate
with ‘first author’ et al. (e.g. Smith et al., 2005).
 Multiple references to the same item should be separated with a semicolon (;) and ordered chronologically.
 References by the same author in the same year should be differentiated by letters (Smith, 2001a; Smith, 2001b).
 Cite articles that have been accepted for publication as 'in press', include in the reference list, and provide a copy in the
Supplemental Information.
 Cite unpublished work, work in preparation, or work under review as 'unpublished data' using the author's initials and
surname in the text only; do not include in the reference section
 References to personal communications should be avoided but, if absolutely necessary, should be referred to as "pers.
comm.", include the relevant individual's name, and the relevant year.
The Reference Section
 Each journal reference should be listed using this format: the full list of Authors with initials. Publication year. Full title of the
article. Full title of the Journal, volume: page extents. DOI (when it's available).

Example journal reference:

Smith JL, Jones P, Wang X. 2004. Investigating ecological destruction in the Amazon. Journal of the Amazon Rainforest 112:368-374
DOI: 10.1234/amazon.15886.

 References to 'gray literature' such as patents, technical reports from government agencies or scientific research groups,
working papers from research groups or committees, white papers, and preprints should be described as thoroughly as
possible. Include any author names, titles of the page or the paper, publication date, names of publisher where possible,
URL, accessed by dates, and identification numbers such as patent numbers, series numbers as applicable.

Example gray literature references:

Boettiger C. 2013. knitcitations: citations for knitr markdown files. Available at https://github.com/cboettig/knitcitations (accessed 10
July 2012)
Dorch B. 2012. On the Citation Advantage of linking to data. hprints. Available at http://hprints.org/hprints-00714715 (accessed 5 July
2012)

 Example book reference:

James FY. 2010. Understanding corn and wheat. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Example book excerpt:

Smith PG. 2011. Behavior in ants. In: Jones HY, ed. Insect behavior in the Andes. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 101–200.

 Example thesis:
Blair HJ. 1989. Structural modifications of the fern genus Lecanopteris (Polypodiaceae). D. Phil. Thesis, Cambridge University.

 Example webpage:
Johnson S. 2010. Italian Plants. Available at http://www.italianplants.com (accessed 22 March 2011).

 Example abstract:
Thomas D, Scharfenecker U, Schiltmeyer B. 2006. Low potential for drug-drug interaction of lacosamide. [Abstract 2.235] Epilepsia
47(Suppl 4): 200.
  The References Section should be sorted by Author, Year, Title. All citations in the text must appear in the reference list, and
all references listed must be cited in the manuscript text. Any references that are relevant, but are not cited in the text, must
be placed in a "Further Reading" section.
 Zotero users can also download the Zotero PeerJ style.
 EndNote users can download the EndNote PeerJ style. If you have used EndNote, you can change the references using the
following steps:
1. Open EndNote
2. Open library (the citation file)
3. Set style to "PeerJ"
4. Go to Edit --> Output Styles --> Edit "PeerJ"
5. Under Bibliography --> Author Lists, set "Abbreviated author list" to "List all author names".
Mendeley
 Before submitting, Mendeley users on Microsoft Word need to change their field codes (used by the software) into plain text
by performing the following:
o If using Windows
Ctrl-A (Selects all the text in the manuscript)
Ctrl-Shift-F9 (Changes the fields codes)
o If using OSX
Command-A (Selects all the text in the manuscript)
Command-6 (Changes the fields codes)

File Types
Manuscript
Check your manuscript with the Manuscript checks
 For manuscript text, PeerJ accepts .DOC (MS Word), .DOCX (MS Word), .TeX, .ODT (OpenDocument) and .RTF formats. LaTeX
authors please submit a PDF manuscript with embedded figures and tables.
 For MS Word submissions .DOCX is preferred as it usually produces higher quality reviewing PDFs and avoids problems with
reference lists.
 Text must be formatted with the "Normal" template (and/or ‘Heading 1,2,3 etc" for Sections).
 Use of ‘unusual’ document templates, for example "Normal (Web)", may affect the quality of the review PDF.
 Do not 'full width' justify your document, instead justify all text to the left-hand margin.

Accepted and preferred file formats

Manuscripts DOCX (preferred), DOC, ODT; PDF for LaTeX users

Figures
Check your figures with the Figure and Table checks
 Please include the figure numbers in the figure filenames (e.g. "Figure 1" or "Figure 2").
 A
Verify details
button will display next to each file you upload. Please use this button to verify details for every file. This may be as simple as
selecting the type of file you have uploaded (manuscript, figure, table etc) or you may be required to enter a title and legend.
o The Title is the one sentence title of a figure. Don't include 'Figure 1', 'Figure 2' etc.
(we will add that for you).

o The Legend is the optional several sentence description.

 Figure and Table numbering is determined by the system based on the ordering in which it appears on the file upload screen.
You can re-order them using drag and drop.
 Figures must be organized, and cited for the first time, in ascending numerical order. This means that Figure 1 must be the
first figure in the text and be cited first, Figure 2 must be the second figure in the text and be cited for the first time after
Figure 1's citation, Figure 3 must be the third figure in the text and be cited for the first time after Figure 2's citation etc.
 Figures can be submitted as EPS and PDF (for vector images), or PNG (for lossless images) for initial review. If figures are
provided as PDF for initial review, high quality EPS or PNG files must be submitted at revision for use in final publication.
 Unnecessary white space should be eliminated around each figure & figure part.
 Uniform fonts and font sizes should be used for labels (letter sizing should be readable at ‘actual sized’ reproduction - we
suggest a vertical height of 2 mm).
 The panels of each multi-part figure should be arranged however the figure is intended to be published and saved in a single
file. Each part should be labeled with an uppercase letter for each figure part (e.g. Fig. 3C) and a single number for the whole
figure group.
  Minimum image size: 900 by 900 pixels.
 These requirements ensure appropriate on-screen reproduction at an acceptable size. However, there will also be an
opportunity to provide high-resolution versions of your images at revision.

Accepted and preferred file formats

Figures Use the original file format and image size whenever possible.

 PDF (preferred)
Vector images
 EPS
(e.g. charts, diagrams):
 PNG

 PNG (preferred)
 JPEG (photographs only)
Raster/bitmap images  PDF
(e.g. drawings, screenshots):  EPS
Ideally at least 3000px wide.
Must be over 900px.

Tables
Check your tables with the Figure and Table checks
… can be submitted as .DOC (MS Word), .DOCX (MS Word), .ODT (Open Doc). PDFs may be provided for initial review, text-based
source files must be provided at revision for use in final publication.
 For clarity, the name of your uploaded files should include "Table 1" "Table 2" etc.
 A
Verify details
button will display next to each file you upload. Please use this button to verify details for every file. This may be as simple as
selecting the type of file you have uploaded (manuscript, figure, table etc) or you may be required to enter a title and legend.
o The Title is the one sentence title of a figure. Don't include 'Table 1', 'Table 2' etc.
(we will add that for you).

o The Legend is the optional several sentence description.

 Cite tables in text as 'Table 1', 'Table 2' etc.

 Tables must be organized, and cited for the first time, in ascending numerical order. This means that Table 1 must be the first
table in the text and be cited first, Table 2 must be the second table in the text and be cited for the first time after Table 1's
citation, Table 3 must be the third table in the text and be cited for the first time after Table 2's citation etc.
 Include units in column and row headings, in parentheses.
 Tables must fit in a single 21.6 x 28 cm page with 2.5 cm margins.
 Place footnotes below the table; these may be used to explain abbreviations.
 Note that our system allows multiple files to be uploaded at once.

Accepted and preferred file formats

Tables DOCX (preferred), DOC, ODT; PDF for LaTeX users

Figure/table referencing
 You must have appropriate permissions and attribute credit when reproducing copyrighted material included in your figures
or tables. If any photographs, maps or images are taken from copyrighted material, we will need a copy of the permissions to
publish under CC BY uploaded as a Supplemental File for our records and the source credit reference needs to be included in
the figure legend.

Referencing examples:

Photo credit: San Diego Zoo Global.

Photo credit: Ali Smith.
Image credit: the MESH archive at http://ondemand.nssl.noaa.gov
3D model credit: Ishmael Kreill
Map data © 2018 Google
  Please upload a signed photography/video permission letter for any copyrighted content created by non-named-authors.
Download photo/video permission letter (.doc)

 To publish figures including identifiable human subjects, you must have appropriate written consent from the human subject
and permission from the image-owner or photographer to publish the image in PeerJ under CC BY. If the human subject is a
minor and could not legally consent, the consent must have been given by the parent or guardian. Both the consent and
permission to publish should both be uploaded as a Supplemental File for our records and the photo credit reference needs
to be included in the figure legend.

Example:

I [name] give [photographer / researcher name] permission to use my image for research and for publication.

TeX / LaTeX users

... since our system cannot convert .tex files, we ask that you upload a PDF that you have generated yourself as the manuscript. Then
upload the source tex files as "Latex source files" in the Primary file category.
Data and Materials
 All authors are responsible for making materials, code, raw data and associated protocols relevant to the submission
available without delay.
 Please ensure that all relevant datasets, code, images and information are available in one of the following possible ways and
provide a link to the appropriate location: uploaded as Supplemental Files, deposited in a public repository, or hosted in a
publicly accessible database. There are very few circumstances in which we can accept a manuscript without raw data (see
point 4 in 'Preparing your submission').
Supplemental Information (SI)
... SI files are published as links alongside the article, which point to downloadable files. These files do not form an integral part of the
manuscript and may include supplemental information or important data which are too large for inclusion in the main manuscript. As
they are provided as ‘original’ files, readers will need to be able to open them using their own resources. Therefore to ensure widest
compatibility you should utilize common file types and avoid proprietary formats.
 All files should be named as a “Supplemental [Item] S[number]”. Please include a brief descriptive title and legend in the
metadata when uploading the file.
 In total, all Supplemental Files should not exceed 50 MB (if more space is needed, please contact us). Individual files should
not exceed 30 MB.
 Note that our system allows multiple files to be uploaded at once.
 If it's necessary to cite Supplemental Information files in the text, use the following style: Fig. S1, Table S1, Data S1, Video S1,
Article S1, Audio S1.
 If the Supplemental Files are only intended for review purposes and cannot be published, please upload the files as review-
only info from the drop down menu in the Supplemental Files section.

For maximum compatibility, we suggest that you submit Supplemental Information using the following formats:
Submit as JPG (use maximum quality settings), EPS (for vector images),
Supplemental Figures
or PNG (for lossless images).

Supplemental Tables Submit as PDF, DOC, Excel, RTF or TeX / LaTeX files.

Supplemental Articles Submit as PDF.

Submit as AVI, MOV, and MP4 files. For widest compatibility, we suggest
authors provide video files as 128 kbit/s AAC audio and 480p H.264
Supplemental Videos video in an MPEG-4 (mp4) format. Regardless of format submitted,
authors should double check that their videos open and play in recent
versions of both QuickTime and Windows Media Player.

Submit as WAV or MP3 files. Please include a legend. Ensure that the
Supplemental Audio files open and play in common audio players such as iTunes or Windows
Media Player.

Large Supplemental Data sets Submit in a compressed format (e.g. zip or tar.gz).
Style Considerations
Units, Symbols, Mathematics, Abbreviations
 Where possible and appropriate, use the International System of Units.
 Use discipline specific (non-SI) units only where they are widely adopted within the field.
 Symbols should be used in lieu of abbreviations for mathematical expressions & defined at first use.
 Spell out the numbers 1-9 unless used with units.
Manuscript Text
 Submissions which will result in a final typeset manuscript of 45 pages or more will incur an additional service charge to
cover production costs. If you have a manuscript of this extent then please email editor@peerj.com to discuss.
 Articles must be written in clear, unambiguous English for an international audience.
 The established norms of academic writing within your field should be followed.
 Either English or American spelling is acceptable provided it is consistently used throughout.
 Nomenclature: Biological & medical nomenclature should adhere to recognized guidelines set forth by international
committee regulations or authoritative bodies for specific fields, as applicable.
Figures
 Image Manipulation: Figures should only be (minimally) processed or manipulated in order to add labels, arrows, or to
change contrast or brightness if applied to the entire image as well as the controls. They should not be adjusted in any way
that could lead to misinterpretation of the information in the original image. Unprocessed figure files and data must be
retained for editorial review upon request. The descriptions of changes, hardware and software used to take images and
make adjustments must also be provided. Inappropriate figure manipulation is grounds for article retraction and/or reporting
to institutional oversight boards.
 Electrophoretic gels and blots: The display of cropped gels and blots in the manuscript is acceptable if it improves its clarity.
In such cases, full-length gels and blots are required in supplementary information at the submission stage.
 "Figure" refers to all images such as graphs, charts, line drawings and photographs. When citing figures in the text, the
abbreviation "Fig." should be used. If the citation is the beginning of the sentence, use the full word "Figure" instead.
 All figures must be cited in the main text.
 Ideally legends should not be included in your image files. However legends in images are accepted for initial review, when
the legend is placed below the image. For revisions, legends in images are not accepted. Non-LaTeX submissions require
legends to be entered manually using the 'Details needed’ button, and should not be included in the manuscript text.
 Figure legends should be self contained and clearly describe the figure and its contents.
 The graphical area of a figure should include information about scales, abbreviations, limits, etc.
 When submitting photographs as figures please indicate the identity of the photographer. If the photographer is not one of
the co-authors, please upload a supplemental document with permission from the photographer allowing you to publish the
image under a CC BY license.
 If you use a map as a figure please cite the source of the map. Wherever possible, use map services which allow unrestricted
re-use. If you must use Google Earth or Google Maps then in order to accurately attribute a map from Google, we need to
know the third-party data providers cited with the map: find out how.
 When creating figures and images consider the accessibility of your chosen color schemes to those with non-normal color
vision. Wherever possible avoid using color alone to distinguish between parts of images. When color is used, we suggest
that you consult the following resources to ensure maximum accessibility: J*FLY, Mapbox and ColorBrewer.
Linnean Binomials
 Authors are encouraged to provide taxonomic authors of Linnean binomials when first used in the text, particularly for taxa
that are the focus of the paper in question. Where several taxa are named, citation of taxonomic authors in Tables is
regarded as an adequate substitute for citation in the body of the text. Authors of zoological names should consist of initials
plus full surnames, whereas authors of botanical names should be abbreviated following Brummitt & Powell's (1992)
'Authors of plant names'. In either case, binomials carrying more than three authors should be abbreviated to 'et al.'
subsequent to the name of the third author.
PLOS.COM
Journal Information
The world’s first multidisciplinary Open Access journal, PLOS ONE accepts scientifically rigorous research, regardless of novelty. PLOS
ONE’s broad scope provides a platform to publish primary research, including interdisciplinary and replication studies as well as
negative results. The journal’s publication criteria are based on high ethical standards and the rigor of the methodology and
conclusions reported.
Scope
PLOS ONE features reports of original research from the natural sciences, medical research, engineering, as well as the related social
sciences and humanities that will contribute to the base of scientific knowledge. By not excluding research on the basis of subject
area, PLOS ONE facilitates the discovery of connections between research whether within or between disciplines.
We will also consider the following article types:
 Systematic reviews. We consider publishing systematic reviews only if the methods ensure the comprehensive and unbiased
sampling of existing literature.
 Submissions describing methods, software, databases, or other tools. We consider submissions describing methods,
software, databases, or other tools if they follow the appropriate reporting guidelines.
 Qualitative research. We consider publishing qualitative research only if it adheres to appropriate study design and reporting
guidelines.
 Studies reporting negative results.
For more information, see our criteria for publication and read our submission guidelines.
Criteria for Publication
1. The study presents the results of primary scientific research.
2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.
3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.
6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.
Rigorous Peer Review
Often a journal's decision not to publish a paper reflects an editor's opinion about what is likely to have substantial impact in a given
field. These subjective judgments can delay the publication of work that later proves to be of major significance. PLOS ONE will
rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the
importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership, who are the most qualified to determine what
is of interest to them.
Each submission to PLOS ONE passes through a rigorous quality control and peer-review evaluation process before receiving a
decision. The initial in-house quality control check deals with issues such as competing interests; ethical requirements for studies
involving human participants or animals; financial disclosures; full compliance with PLOS’ data availability policy, etc. Submissions may
be returned to authors for queries, and will not be seen by our Editorial Board or peer reviewers until they pass this quality control
check.
Once each manuscript has passed quality control, it is assigned to a member of the Editorial Board, who takes responsibility as the
Academic Editor for the submission. The Academic Editor is responsible for conducting the peer-review process and for making a
decision to accept, invite revision of, or reject the article.
Read more about the editorial and peer review process.
Read the guidelines for reviewers.
Editorial Oversight
PLOS ONE is run as a partnership between in-house PLOS staff and an international Editorial Board, ensuring fast, fair, and
professional peer review.
Editor-in-Chief
Joerg Heber
PLOS ONE Editors
View the biographies of the PLOS ONE Editors.
Editorial Board
View the PLOS ONE Editorial Board.
Resources for Editors. Board members can sign in to the private Editorial Board Knowledge Base to download the Academic Editor
Handbook, watch courses on topics such as competing interests and finding reviewers, and communicate with fellow editors in
discussion forums.
Submit Your Manuscript
For more information about submitting to PLOS ONE, read our checklist for getting started and our guidelines for preparing a
submission.
Open Access
PLOS applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to works we publish. This license was developed to facilitate open
access – namely, free immediate access to, and unrestricted reuse of, original works of all types.
Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees, for virtually any purpose.
Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. Read PLOS’ licenses
and copyright policy.
Journal Impact and Article Metrics
PLOS does not consider Impact Factor to be a reliable or useful metric to assess the performance of individual articles. PLOS supports
DORA – the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment – and does not promote our journal Impact Factors. We will provide
the metric to individuals when specifically requested.
Read more about our pledge with DORA and our concerns with journal-level research assessment.
PLOS promotes the use of Article-Level Metrics (ALMs), which enable scientists and the general public to engage more dynamically
with published research. ALMs reflect the changing impact of research over time, incorporate academic as well as social impacts of
research, and assess the impact of research before the accrual of academic citations. Read more about ALMs.
Publication Fees
PLOS ONE publication fees are US$1495 per manuscript and will be billed upon acceptance. Authors’ ability to pay publication fees
will never be a consideration in the decision whether to publish. Read more about publication fees and publication fee support.
Indexing and Archiving
See publishing details for all PLOS journal titles, including ISSN and indexing and archiving information.
About PLOS Journals
PLOS (Public Library of Science) publishes a suite of influential journals from all areas of science and medicine that contain rigorously
reported, peer-reviewed Open Access research articles. The journals vary in their criteria for publication and, with the exception
of PLOS ONE, also publish a variety of influential and educational non-research content. The journals are editorially
independent. Read more about the PLOS suite of journals.
Contact
Visit the Contact page for details about whom to contact with different queries.
Give Feedback
ANNUALREVIEWS.ORG
Most Annual Reviews journals follow these general steps in moving your submission from manuscript to typeset PDF. However, there
are exceptions. Contact your Production Editor if you have any questions about the production process.
Please note that we consider the version of the manuscript that you submitted to be the only and official version of your manuscript
in production. If you have changes to make from this point on, please make them only to an in-production manuscript that you
receive from your Production Editor.
Evaluated by a Technical Reviewer
Following its arrival at Annual Reviews, your manuscript is processed, evaluated by a technical reviewer, and copyedited. Although
Annual Reviews articles are invited, a manuscript may be rejected as unsuitable for publication if it does not meet the general
guidelines for an Annual Review article or if it is not of high enough quality as determined by the editors.
Galley Proofs
Once the technical editor has approved the manuscript for publication and the manuscript has been copyedited by an Annual Reviews
Production Editor or freelance copyeditor, you will receive electronic galley proofs. If your original submission was in Microsoft Word,
these galley proofs will also be in Microsoft Word with the reviewer’s comments and copyeditor’s changes and queries marked with
Word’s tracking function. A PDF will be sent to authors using LaTeX. (Note that if major revisions are requested, the Production Editor
will contact you prior to copyediting.)
Timing
Annual Reviews endeavors to send you your copyedited galley proofs within 16 weeks of submission, but this timeline depends on
several factors. Contact your Production Editor. if you have questions about timing and schedules.
If you anticipate being unavailable at any time during the production process, please contact your Production Editor, as many stages
are time sensitive.
Revisions Permitted at the Galley Stage
The galley stage is your final opportunity to make stylistic changes to your review. Because of time and cost constraints, once we have
sent your manuscript to the compositor to be typeset (the “page proof” stage, discussed below), stylistic changes are not permitted.
Please use this galley proof to your advantage and make any insertions/deletions you deem necessary. However, manuscripts should
not be extensively rewritten at this stage.
Retain All Tracked Changes
If you receive your galley proofs in Microsoft Word, please do not “accept” or “reject” the tracked changes from the copyeditor. If you
do not agree with an editorial change, simply type “NO,” and we will undo the change. Corrections and revisions must be indicated
using Word’s tracking feature. All tracking will be “cleaned up” by the Production Editor after you return the manuscript.
Figures
During the production process, you will be contacted by an Annual Reviews Illustration Editor regarding edits to your figures. Contact
your Production Editor if you have questions about revisions to your figures or for the contact information of your Illustration Editor.
You may also refer to the Author Graphics Guide in the Author Resource Center.
Page Proofs
Typeset page proofs are sent electronically approximately one month after you return the corrected galley proofs and approve the
final figures. With the author’s permission, these typeset page proofs, not yet incorporating any final corrections, may be published
online ahead of print (a “Review in Advance”—see next section). Final corrections are incorporated before final online/print
publication.
At the page proof (PDF) stage, only typos, typesetter’s errors, or factual errors may be corrected, and “In press” references may be
updated. Any changes that affect the layout of the review cannot be made.
Reviews in Advance
You have the option to have the uncorrected typeset page proof posted online approximately one week after it is available (your
Production Editor will send you a form to accept or reject this option). This Review in Advance (RIA) is then replaced by the final
version of the article when the complete volume is published online.
Publication
The title and abstract of your article will be available on the Annual Reviews website about seven months before final publication.
With prompt submission and your approval, the typeset page proof of your article, lacking any final corrections, will be published
online as an RIA. The final full text will replace the RIA upon final publication. For journals with a print version, the hard copy publishes
approximately one month after final online publication.
ePrints
Annual Review authors can provide author ePrints to colleagues who request them. An author ePrint is a keyed URL (a unique Web
address) that grants free online access to the author’s review in both Web-browsable form (as HTML pages, with links to other online
resources) and “reprint” form (a locally printable PDF file). Your Production Editor will provide that information when the final volume
is published online. More information about self-archiving and permissions is on our website.