Reviewing for JEB

Unbiased independent critical assessment is of vital importance in scholarly publishing and, as such, JEB adheres to The Company of Biologists' editorial principles and to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on publishing objective and unbiased scientific information. For more information on the principles that are of relevance to reviewers (including confidentiality and competing interests), please visit our publishing ethics policy webpage.

Guidelines for reviewing Research Articles

JEB 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. Only under compelling circumstances will an Editor decide that an exception to this guideline is warranted.
(3) JEB requests that authors limit the amount of Supplementary data that they submit with a paper. When assessing supplementary data, please check if all of the data submitted are appropriate and essential for supporting the findings of a paper. Please also note that we only accept data files, such as movies, figures, tables and datasets, as supplementary material. We do not accept supplementary text files that contain: Materials and Methods, Results or Discussions. Such information should be included in the manuscript itself.
(4) 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.

Papers rejected from The Journal of Experimental Biology may be transferred, with the authors' approval, to The Company of Biologists’ new journal Biology Open for editorial review. In this case, the authors may choose to make the reviewers' reports available to the Biology Open Editors. By passing on reports, our aim is to reduce the burden on authors and reviewers by avoiding the multiple rounds of review often encountered on a paper's route to publication. Reviewers may choose whether to remain anonymous to the Biology Open Editors (reviewers are always anonymous to authors). Named reviewers will not be approached for further review by Biology Open.

Guidelines for reviewing Methods & Techniques

Methods & Techniques are short, peer-reviewed articles reporting innovative methodological advances or significant modifications to recognized methods of data collection and analysis. Manuscripts should demonstrate the use of the method in collecting/analyzing physiological data, but it is not necessary to report an extensive physiological dataset or test a hypothesis to show the application of the method.

Please consider the following when reviewing a Methods & Techniques article:

(1) Is the method truly novel or does it represent a significant improvement of an existing method?
(2) Is the method described in sufficient detail to allow it to be replicated by others?
(3) Does the manuscript demonstrate the use of the method in an appropriate physiological system?
(4) Does the manuscript illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of the method?

Papers rejected from The Journal of Experimental Biology may be transferred, with the authors' approval, to The Company of Biologists’ new journal Biology Open for editorial review. In this case, the authors may choose to make the reviewers' reports available to the Biology Open Editors. By passing on reports, our aim is to reduce the burden on authors and reviewers by avoiding the multiple rounds of review often encountered on a paper's route to publication. Reviewers may choose whether to remain anonymous to the Biology Open Editors (reviewers are always anonymous to authors). Named reviewers will not be approached for further review by Biology Open.

Guidelines for reviewing 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.

Guidelines for reviewing Reviews

Reviews in JEB 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 make these clear in your report.