Submissions are assessed by the Editorial Board
and are subject to external peer review using the single blind method whereby the authors are blinded to the identity of the reviewers and editors.
Due to the high volume of submissions received, the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board operate a rapid triage system and only the top 70% of papers undergo full external peer review. This workflow is in place to allow authors to submit to a more appropriate journal with minimal delay.
On average the journal returns a decision on a peer-reviewed paper in 18 days.
If your paper is found to be outside the scope of Endocrine-Related Cancer you may be offered the opportunity to transfer it to Endocrine Connections for rapid consideration. The offer to transfer is made at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, and may be made prior to or after full peer review. Authors may accept or decline the offer to transfer. If the offer is accepted after peer review, then the paper will be transferred along with the reviewer reports. This will assist the Editor-in-Chief of Endocrine Connections to assess the suitability of the article for the journal, meaning that it may be possible for your paper to be accepted and published rapidly without further peer review, although acceptance is not guaranteed. All decisions made by an Editor-in-Chief of either journal are final.
Authors are entitled to appeal against a rejection decision made by a journal. Appeals should be submitted to the journal email address. We must receive your valid appeal within four weeks of the original decision, otherwise it will not be considered. An appeal is considered to be an extension of the peer review process and so you should not submit your article to another publication whilst an appeal is ongoing.
To be considered, appeals must directly address the reason(s) given for the initial rejection decision. If reviewer reports were included with the decision letter, then these criticisms must be responded to in the appeal, however you should not prepare and submit a revised version of your article with the appeal. Appeals that are received late, do not address reviewers’ criticisms, are dismissive of the reviewer comments, or contain offensive language will not be considered.
Valid appeals will be sent to a member of the journal’s Editorial Board for consideration. Where possible, an independent member of the Editorial Board who was not connected to the original decision will oversee the appeal.
If successful, an appeal may result in the decision being rescinded and a continuation of the peer-review process. If the appeal is rejected, then the original rejection decision is upheld and no further consideration of that article is possible.
- Structure – Ensure the submission is structured as requested by the journal, and contains all relevant sections. See ‘Preparation of Manuscripts’ for further details.;
- Title page – All submissions must have a title page stating all of the relevant information. See ’General’ for further details.
- Format – All submissions should follow the journal guidelines for word count, page margins and line numbering. See ‘General’ for further details.
- Language – Non-native English speakers are encouraged to have their manuscript professionally edited before submission. This is particularly key for revised submissions. Click here for full details of our recommended English Language Editing Services.
- Reported data – Data accuracy is crucial. Authors are strongly encouraged to double-check all reported data for accuracy and to confirm that all units of measurement are correct and consistent.
- References – Please see ‘References’ for full details of the journal’s required style.
- Graphics - All figures and tables should be presented in a clear and informative manner with accompanying legends.
- Ethical compliance – All articles are required to meet the requirements outlined in our ethical policy. Ensure you have included all relevant ethical approval statements.
- Approval – Ensure all authors have seen and approved the final version of the article prior to submission. All authors must also approve the journal to which you are submitting.
- Open Access – The appropriate Open Access licence must be selected on submission. Authors are responsible for ensuring any funder mandates are followed. For further details, please see the Open Access policy.
- Charges – Endocrine-Related Cancer is committed to keeping costs to authors to a minimum, however some charges may apply. Authors are responsible for familiarising themselves with these prior to submission. Full details are available on our publication charges page.
Uploading your submission
- Author list – All authors must be listed on the title page and entered on the ScholarOne Manuscripts submission in the correct order. Ensure all author email addresses provided are valid. Author information entered into ScholarOne Manuscripts will be used to generate PubMed listings for published papers.
- Cover letter – This letter should introduce your paper and outline why your work is important and suitable for publication at this time.
- File formats – Ensure all files are in the correct format for revised submissions. See ‘General’ for further instructions.
- Figures and tables – Ensure all figures and table files are present and correct, and that they display clearly in the PDF proof.
User account details
All submitting authors are required to link their ScholarOne account with their ORCID iD. The system will prompt the author to do this when creating the submission.
The journal also requests that all authors identified as ‘corresponding authors’ create and link an ORCID iD with their account on ScholarOne prior to article acceptance. We also encourage contributing authors to associate an ORCID iD with their ScholarOne account. Author ORCID iDs will be displayed on the published article.
Author email addresses
The journal requires an institutional email address is associated with the account of both the submitting author and corresponding author; please edit the associated ScholarOne accounts to include this before pressing 'submit'. Alternatively please provide an explanation as to why this is not available to the Editorial Office by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org
This policy has been adopted in order to verify the authenticity of article submissions and protect the integrity of Endocrine-Related Cancer.
- Be concise and clear.
- Be limited to 5000 words for Research submissions. For information on other manuscript types please see the relevant section below.
- Display the word count on the title page.
- Contain no more than 10 figures and 60 references as recommended by the journal.
- Use double line spacing throughout (including reference list and figure legends), and contain continuous line numbering down the left-side of each page.
- Define all abbreviations when first mentioned.
- Be submitted in the correct file type, ie main document in an editable Word format.
- Be written in either UK or US English.
- Contain a title page.
Accepted file types:
- Please be aware that the combined size of your files should not exceed 40 MB.
- For article text: txt, doc, docx, rtf. We are unable to accept PDF files for article text for revised manuscripts but can do so for first submissions.
- For figures: eps, tiff, jpg, pdf
Changes within revised manuscripts should be highlighted using the highlighter function or coloured text, and should be accompanied by a full response letter to editor and reviewer comments.
All research submissions should be formatted with the following sections:
1. Title Page
Include a separate title page with:
- Title (maximum 85 characters)
- All authors' names and full addresses
- Corresponding author’s postal and email address
- A short title (maximum 46 characters, including spaces)
- A minimum of four keywords describing the manuscript
- Word count of the full article, excluding references and figure legends
The abstract should be a single paragraph of not more than 250 words, clearly stating the objective of the study, the methods used (where applicable), and summarizing results and conclusions. Avoid abbreviations and references in this section.
The introduction should set the study in context by briefly reviewing relevant knowledge of the subject; follow this with a concise statement of the objectives of the study.
4. Materials and methods
Provide sufficient information for other workers to repeat the study. If well-established methods are used give a reference to the technique and provide full details of any modifications.
- Include the source of chemicals, reagents and hormones and give the manufacturer’s name and location (town, country) in parentheses.
- Give the generic name, dose and route of administration for drugs.
- Specify the composition of buffers, solutions and culture media.
- Use SI symbols, give concentrations in mol/L and define the term % as w/v or v/v for all solutions. For international units use IU (U should be used for enzyme activity).
- Specify the type of equipment (microscopes/objective lenses, cameras, detectors) used to obtain images.
- Specify any image acquisition software used, and give a description of specialized techniques requiring large amounts of processing, such as confocal, deconvolution, 3D reconstructions, or surface and volume rendering.
The results should read as a narrative leading the reader through the experiments and investigations performed. Referencing and mention of others studies is permitted in the Results section where necessary or helpful.
Should not simply re-state results, but should put them in the broader context and highlight the importance and novelty of the work.
7. Declaration of interest, Funding and Acknowledgements
Declaration of interest
Actual or perceived conflicts of interest for all authors must be declared in full.
Please either (a) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported; or (b) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest.
Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
- Employment and consultancies
- Grants, fees and honoraria
- Ownership of stock or shares
- Patents (pending and actual)
- Board membership
Please detail all of the sources of funding relevant to the research reported in the following format:
This work was supported by the Medical Research Council (grant numbers xxxx, yyyy); the Wellcome Trust (grant number xxxx); and Tommy’s Baby charity (grant number xxxx).
Where research has not been funded please state the following:
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.
Author contribution statement (optional)
Please include a statement specifying the contribution of each co-author.
Please be as brief as possible.
All references cited in the text must be included in the reference list and vice versa. However, if a reference consists of only a web address do not include it in the reference list but cite it in the text, giving the date the page was accessed.
Any unpublished work (personal communications, manuscripts in preparation and manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted for publication) must be referred to in the text and not listed in the references.
Give the full list of authors, including their initials. For example:
(A Stone, J Brown & M R Smith, unpublished observations)
(J Brown, personal communication)
Articles accepted for publication but not yet published may be listed as ‘in press’ in the reference list, using the current year as the publication year. If an ‘in press’ article is included in the Accepted Preprint service or a similar scheme, then the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) should be included; otherwise, provide a copy of the article as a supplementary file for reviewing purposes.
In the text
Cite references in the text using the authors’ names and publication year. Use et al. for articles with more than two authors. Where there are several citations, list them in chronological order.
In the reference list
List references in alphabetical order. Give articles by the same author in the order:
- Single author
- Two authors alphabetically according to the name of the second author
- Three or more authors chronologically, with a, b and c etc. for articles published in the same year, in the order in which they are cited in the text.
List all authors in each reference in the reference list; do not use et al. in the reference list.
Reference in the following format:
See RH, Calvo D, Shi Y, Kawa H, Luke MP & Yuan Z 2001 Stimulation of p300-mediated transcription by the kinase MEKK1. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276 16310–16317.
Harvey SS 1975 Hypnotics and sedatives. The barbiturates. In The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, edn 5, pp 102–123. Eds LS Goodman & A Gilman. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Please use Harvard style (Author, Year). Do not use an Endnote style which abbreviates the reference list in your submitted article.
Tables should be concise. Tables too large for print publication should be submitted as supplementary data.
- Number tables in the order they are cited in the text.
- Include a title – a single sentence at the head of the table that includes the name of the organism studied.
- Use footnotes to provide any additional explanatory material, cross-referenced to the column entries.
- Give a short heading for each column.
- Do not use internal horizontal or vertical lines, colour or shading.
- Explain all abbreviations used in the table in the footnotes.
Please note that the option to print large tables in a final article is subject to editorial approval. If the tables are deemed too large for the final article, you will be asked to publish your tables as supplementary data and charges
The journal has produced digital image guidelines in order to clarify the standards expected by the journal. All submitted digital images must adhere to these guidelines.
Colour figures will be published online at no charge to the author. Publication of colour figures in the print version will incur a charge that must be paid before publication. Please note the option to print in greyscale is subject to editorial approval, if the meaning of your image is unclear you will be asked to print in colour and a charge will apply.
- Number figures in the order they are cited in the text.
- Include legends to all figures, giving the figure number, keys to any symbols used, the name of the organism studied, the names of any statistical tests used and the probability levels used for comparisons.
- Label figure sections as A, B etc in the top left-hand corner.
- Use Arial or a similar sans-serif font for text labels.
- Do not enclose figures in boxes.
- Indicate magnification by a scale bar in the bottom right-hand corner of the image and give the measurement in the legend.
- Use the preferred symbols of closed and open circles, squares and triangles. Ensure that symbols are large enough to be read clearly when the figure is reduced for publication.
- Use Courier or a similar non-proportional font for amino acid, DNA, RNA and PCR primer sequences and highlight sections of homology between sequences with grey shading.
File types and resolution
Endocrine-Related Cancer is committed to publishing high quality figures.
EPS or TIFF files are preferred. Files should be exported in Illustrator compatible format, avoiding PowerPoint or Word files.
- Line images/graphs: EPS, TIFF, high-resolution PDF, AI (Adobe Illustrator) resolution at final published size: 1200 dpi
- Half-tone (greyscale) images: TIFF, high-resolution PDF, JPEG; resolution at final published size: 600 dpi
- Colour images: TIFF, high-resolution PDF, JPEG. EPS or AI files can be used for graphical data and illustrations that don’t include photographs; resolution at final published size: 300 dpi; RGB format
Endocrine-Related Cancer also accepts the following manuscript types.
The format of review articles is more fluid but should include the following:
1. Title page
4. Declaration of interest, Funding, Author contributions statements (where appropriate)
6. Figure legends
For further information on what is include in each of these sections, please see the ‘Manuscript Preparation’ section above.
Review submissions should be limited to 6,000 words, with a maximum of 60 references and 2–6 figures and tables. Original summary diagrams and illustrations of proposed models (in colour where appropriate) are encouraged. Line drawings may be redrawn. Boxes can be used to separate detailed explanations and background information from the main part of the text.
New for 2022. Mini Reviews are short concise reviews focusing on emerging themes that may not yet be suitable for a full review article. Mini Reviews should be no more than 3000 words in length, with limited references and figures. Mini reviews also require graphical abstract to accompany their article. Two key themes of mini review are currently being commissioned:
- This collection will focus on new concepts, technology or technical applications, such as organoids on a chip etc.
2. Translational science
- This collection will focus on outlining the importance of translational research to our clinical community. These article may be written in response to high impact research published elsewhere, where a clinical impact may be significant
Systematic reviews are critical assessments of the literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. A systematic review may or may not include a meta-analysis.
Systematic review submissions should be limited to 6,000 words.
Systematic Reviews must meet the requirements of the PRISMA
guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and are recommended to include a statement confirming adherence to the PRISMA guidelines in the abstract and the 'Materials and Methods' section of their manuscript. An example statement is included here:
‘The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines'.
Authors are encouraged to follow the relevant reporting guidelines available at http://www.equator-network.org/
. The EQUATOR network provides a database of reporting guidelines, aiming to improve the reliability of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting.
Although not an obligatory requirement, the journal encourages registration of Systematic Reviews with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). If registered, authors should include the registration number in the abstract and the 'Materials and Methods' section of their manuscript.
Systematic reviews should adhere to the following sections:
- Title page
The abstract should be structured into Purpose, Methods, Results and Conclusions and be limited to a maximum of 250 words.
- Materials and Methods
Give appropriate details so the systematic review and meta-analysis could be repeated independently. Comment on assessment tool used (such as COSMOS-E or risk-of-bias tools Rob1, ROBINS).
Including meta-analysis if performed.
Should not simply re-state results, but should put them in the broader context and highlight the importance and novelty of the work in its concluding section.
- Declaration of interest, Funding and Acknowledgments, Data sharing/availability statement.
- Tables and figures
Authors wishing to submit a Systematic Review should submit a formal proposal to the editorial office
as outlined below.
Guidelines and Recommendations
The format of guidelines and recommendation articles depends on the content. Generally these articles are commissioned by the editorial board and undergo peer review. If you would like to submit an article for consideration please submit a formal proposal to the editorial office
as outlined below.
All Editorials must be a maximum 1500 words (including references, legends and tables) and 10 references. Authors wishing to submit an editorial should submit a formal proposal to the editorial office
as outlined below.
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor have a flexible format and may be published on occasion, where comments on a paper published in Endocrine-Related Cancer
or a topical issue in the field are of broad interest to the readership. Letters to the Editor can be no longer than 1500 words, have no abstract, have no more than 10 references and have no more than 2 display items. Supplementary data is not allowed. Authors wishing to submit a Letter to the Editor should submit a formal proposal to the editorial office
as outlined below.
usually does not accept the submission of single Case Reports, unless they present exceptional novel insights into the pathophysiology or management of endocrine-related cancer disease. Authors are required to submit a proposal to the editorial office
prior to submitting a case report or case series for consideration.
Authors wishing to submit a literature review containing a case report or case series are required to follow our review guidelines and submit a pre-submission proposal as outlined below.
Endocrine-Related Cancer requires all authors wishing to submit an Unsolicited Review, Mini Review or Systematic Review; Guideline or Recommendation; Editorial, Letter to the Editor or Case Report articles to submit a formal proposal to the editorial office, prior to submission. The proposal should include the following:
- A copy of your abstract (for Review and Guideline articles only)
- A proposed outline of your article (including details of the review process for Systematic Reviews)
- A brief explanation as to why the article is timely and add value to the current literature
- A brief explanation of why the article would be of interest to Endocrine-Related Cancer readers specifically
- One/two page CV and publication record for the past 5 years for all authors. Alternatively provide valid ORCID IDs for each author, ensuring the publication history is up to date for at least the past 5 years.
Supplementary data too large for print publication or exceeding the bounds of the manuscript may be submitted for online publication.
Supplementary data files intended for online publication should be submitted online via ScholarOne Manuscripts as ‘Supplemental File for Review’, and referred to as supplementary data in the text:
(Supplementary Table 1)
(Supplementary Figures 1 and 2)
Supplementary information will be reviewed as part of the manuscript, evaluated for its importance and relevance and, if accepted, will be referenced in the text of the article, directing readers to the website. There is a charge
for publication of supplementary data. Should authors not wish to publish their supplementary data, they must notify the editorial office prior to acceptance.
Human Subjects Research
Authors must ensure research involving human subjects complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Authors must include a statement that consent has been obtained from each patient after full explanation of the purpose and nature of all procedures used. For research requiring ethics committee approval, please include a statement to this effect in the manuscript. Also indicate whether patient consent was obtained in line with the below policy. We will be unable to accept research papers without this statement.
Where possible, identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Any identifiable patient must be shown the manuscript to be published before being asked to give consent. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available online or in print after publication. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. We no longer publish pictures with black bands across the eyes without a signed consent form, because bands fail to mask someone’s identity effectively.
Authors submitting case reports are required to state that they have obtained informed consent from the patient or the patient's guardian for publication of the submitted article and accompanying images. Authors should obtain written consent from the patient for use of potential identifiable material including photographs.
The patient (or parent or guardian) must give written informed consent for publication by signing our consent form. Signed consent forms should then be retained in the patient's clinical notes for future reference, and a copy should be made available for review by the Editor on request.
The manuscript reporting this patient's details should state that 'Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient/parent/guardian/relative of the patient'.
If the patient is deceased the authors should seek permission from a relative and include a statement to this fact. If neither the patient or a relative can be traced, we can only publish if we are satisfied the information has been sufficiently anonymised, making it impossible to identify the patient with any certainty.
Permission is not required to publish the 'recordings' listed below, provided that the recordings are effectively anonymised by the removal of any identifying marks, and patient details (i.e. patient name, date of birth, name of hospital) from images before submission:
- Images taken from pathology slides;
- Laparoscopic images;
- Images of internal organs; and
- Ultrasound images
When such an image is accompanied by text that could reveal the patient's identity through clinical or personal detail, however, a signed consent form and declaration as listed above, will be required before publication.
Papers reporting clinical trials will only be considered if the trials have been pre-registered according to the guidelines set out in The Lancet 364 (9438) 911-912
Authors should also refer to the CONSORT 2010 Statement
, and in particular the checklist within it, when preparing manuscripts detailing clinical trials.
Authors must state the clinical trial registration number within their article.
Human genotype–phenotype association studies
Until recently almost all genotype–phenotype observations were done using candidate gene approaches. The sequencing of the human genome and the comprehensive mapping of haplotypes of human SNPs have revolutionized gene association studies, which can now be conducted through genome-wide approaches. Unfortunately, many of the reported genotype–phenotype associations are questionable, and have not been replicated. Endocrine-Related Cancer
recognizes that genotype–phenotype association studies, performed by either genome-wide or candidate gene approaches, are of potential interest as a first step in the discovery process, although subsequent validation will be needed to confirm or refute the observation. However, these initial association reports must be methodologically sound. To ensure this the journal has adopted the recommendations made by the NCI-NHGRI Working Group on Replication in Association Studies (Nature 447 (7145) 655-660
), and authors should adhere to these criteria as listed below.
These criteria are intended for studies of genotype–phenotype associations assessed by genome-wide or candidate-gene approaches:
- Statistical analyses demonstrating the level of statistical significance of a finding should be published or at least available so that others can attempt to reproduce the reported results.
- Explicit information should be provided about the study’s power to detect a range of effects.
- The study should be epidemiologically sound, with careful accounting for potential biases in selection of subjects, characterization of phenotypes, comparability of environmental exposures (when possible) and underlying population structure in cases and controls.
- Phenotypes should be assessed according to standard definitions provided in the report.
- Associations should be consistent (within the range of expected statistical fluctuation) and reported for the same phenotypes across study subgroups or across similar phenotypes in the entire study group.
- Significance should not depend on altering the quality control methods beyond standard approaches that could change inclusion or exclusion of large numbers of samples or loci.
- Measures to assess the quality of genotype data should include results of known study sample duplicates or publicly available samples.
- The results for concordance between duplicate samples (if applicable) as well as completion and call rates per SNP and per subject should be disclosed, along with rates of missing data.
- A subset of notable SNPs should be evaluated with a second technology that verifies the same result with excellent concordance, because no technology is error-free.
- Associations with nearby SNPs in strong linkage disequilibrium with the putatively associated SNP should be reported (and should be similar).
- The results of replication studies of previous findings should be reported even if the results are not significant.
- Testing for differences in underlying population structure in case and control groups should be performed and reported.
- Appropriate correction for multiple comparisons across all statistical tests examined should be reported. Comparison to genome-wide thresholds should be described. Similarly, for bayesian approaches, the choice of prior probabilities should be described.
Experiments with animals must be performed in accordance with international, national and institutional requirements. Include a statement that investigations have been approved by the local ethical committee, along with the following:
- Give the full binomial Latin names for all experimental animals other than common laboratory animals.
- State the breed or strain and source of animals, and give details of age, weight, sex and housing.
- Detail the procedures and anaesthetics used, including doses given.
Articles will only be considered if the procedures used are clearly described and conformed with the international and national legal and ethical requirements, as well as the requirements outlined by the institution in which the work took place. A statement identifying the committee approving the study must also be included in the Methods section.
Authors are encouraged to refer to the ARRIVE guidelines
, and in particular the checklist within them, when preparing manuscripts detailing animal experiments.
Editors reserve the right to request further information on the exact procedures and ethical approval obtained as part of the review process. Papers may be rejected on ethical grounds should the editors feel the study does not adequately meet current international guidelines for humane research.
Experiments with genetically engineered mice
In inbred mice, genetic strain effects can have significant effects on phenotype. Because of this the following controls for experiments with genetically-manipulated mice should be used: parental inbred strain, or wild-type littermates.
In general, studies that are based on observations performed in a single cell line will not be considered for publication if other lines of the same general lineage and characteristics are available. If at all possible, observations should be replicated in multiple cell lines.
Authentication of cell lines
We require that all cell lines are authenticated for correct origin. Specifically, the author should include the following information supporting the authentication of lines:
1. Source of cell lines. Gifts of cell lines from individuals will not be acceptable.
2. Please state what the method of authentication is. For example, ATCC uses STRS analysis.
3. State the passage number(s) of cell lines used for the experiments described in the submission. Unless the research is specifically about senescence, lines >35 passages would not be acceptable.
Genetic association case/control studies
The Society for Endocrinology has produced guidelines for genetic association case/control studies in order to ensure they are methodologically sound and readers can fully assess their significance.
All Society for Endocrinology journals require data from such studies to be deposited in public databases (eg MIAME or GEO) or the manuscript will not be published. Endocrine-Related Cancer supports the public dissemination of gene expression data.
Wherever possible, manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with approved gene nomenclature.
- In gene and protein symbols, substitute Greek letters with the corresponding roman letter, e.g. TGFBR2 not TGFβR2.
- Avoid hyphens unless they are part of the approved symbol, e.g. IGF1 not IGF-1.
- Use arabic rather than roman numerals, e.g. BMPR2 not BMPRII.
Follow species-specific formatting standards as follows:
Mice and rats
- Gene symbols should be in italics with only the first letter capitalised, e.g. Sox2.
- Protein designations should be the same as the gene symbols except that all letters should be capitalised and in roman (i.e. not italicised), e.g. SOX2.
- Please use symbols approved by the International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice and the Rat Genome and Nomenclature Committee, which can be queried at the MGI website.
Humans, non-human primates and domestic species
- Gene symbols should be in italics with all letters capitalised, e.g. SOX2.
- Protein designations should be the same as the gene symbols but not italicised, e.g. SOX2.
- Please use symbols approved by the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC).
Digital image integrity
Recognizing that the inappropriate use of computer software for digital image analysis and processing can raise concerns, the journal has produced the following requirements for the representation of research data:
- No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced.
- Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or colour balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Any such adjustments should be applied to the entire image.
- Threshold manipulation, expansion or contraction of signal ranges and the altering of high signals should be avoided.
- The legend to a digital image should state if and what digital modifications were applied.
The following guidelines apply to digital images that that result from gel electrophoresis and blotting procedures:
- Band intensity should be quantified from several independent experiments. If only a "typical" experiment is shown in the figure, authors should be prepared to provide unprocessed images of gels or blots at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
- Extensively cropped images are not acceptable. Images can be cropped to enhance clarity of presentation, but should always contain at least two markers (one with a smaller, one with a larger molecular size than the band of interest) with their molecular sizes indicated.
- Producing spliced images by combining lanes from gels or blots from different experimental runs should be avoided. A lane containing markers should be on the same gel for each run. If spliced images are presented, the vertical lanes obtained from gels or blots from different experimental runs should be clearly demarcated with lines.
- As the validity of immunoblots relies heavily on antibody specificity, an appropriate control (tissue from knockout mice or protein knockdown in cell lines) must be included, or alternatively a reference should be given in the methods section referring to such a control (Saper 2009; Burry 2011).
- The reuse of images of loading controls from other experiments or previous publications is unacceptable.
Burry RW 2011 Controls for immunocytochemistry: An update. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry 59 6–12. (doi:10.1369/jhc.2010.956920)
Saper CB 2009 A guide to the perplexed on the specificity of antibodies. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry 57 1–5. (doi:10.1369/jhc.2008.952770)
Microscope images should be made available to referees in images that are at least 300 dpi at the size which they will be published. 'Pseudo-colouring' and nonlinear adjustment (for example 'gamma changes') are only allowed if unavoidable and must be disclosed.
It is the author’s responsibility to document that the results are reproducible and that the differences found are not due to random variation. No absolute rules can be applied but, in general, quantitative data should be from no fewer than three replicate experiments. Appropriate statistical methods should be used to test the significance of differences in results. The term ‘significant’ should not be used unless statistical analysis was performed, and the probability value used to identify significance (e.g. P < 0.05) should be specified.
When several t-tests are employed, authors should be aware that nominal probability levels no longer apply. Accordingly, the multiple t-test, multiple range test, or similar techniques to permit simultaneous comparisons should be employed. Also, in lieu of using several t-tests, it is often more appropriate to utilize an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to permit pooling of data, increase the number of degrees of freedom, and improve reliability of results. Authors should use appropriate nonparametric tests when the data depart substantially from a normal distribution.
In presenting results of linear regression analyses, it is desirable to show 95% confidence limits.
When data points are fitted with lines, specify the method used for fitting (graphical, least squares, computer program). If differences in slopes and/or axis intercepts are claimed for plotted lines, these should be supported by statistical analysis.
Give sufficient details of the experimental design and analysis so that the reader can assess their adequacy and validity for testing the hypotheses of interest.
- Describe the numbers of experimental units used and the way in which they have been allocated to treatments.
- Justify the omission of any observations from the analysis.
- Describe methods of analysis precisely and state any necessary assumptions, as these may affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the experiment.
Your article may be sent to the Statistical Advisor for comments.
A preprint is a version of the article prior to submission to the journal for peer review, and has not been copyedited or typeset.
Bioscientifica allows deposition of preprints to recognized repositories, such as bioRxiv, provided that Bioscientifica is informed of this at the time of submission and it does not infringe any subsequent copyright or licence agreement.
Upon final publication, authors are required to add a link from the preprint to the published article (version of record).
Depositing data in public databases
Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit data sets in appropriate public databases. Authors should include the relevant database identifiers and accession numbers for deposited sequences within the manuscript using the following format: Database: xxxx, e.g: GEO: GSE6364. Authors are also required to provide the URL for the sequence(s).
Below is a list of public databases:
This list is not exhaustive. Please contact the editorial office
if you have a query about relevant databases.
License and copyright policy
During the publication process the contact author will be asked to complete a licence agreement on behalf of the copyright holder for the article. The terms of the licence will differ depending on whether the article is to be published on a subscription or an open access basis.
- Subscription. The copyright holder will grant the Society for Endocrinology and Bioscientifica an exclusive licence to publish the article.
- Open Access. The copyright holder will grant the Society for Endocrinology and Bioscientifica a non-exclusive licence to publish the article.
In each case, copyright is retained by the original copyright holder and is not assigned to Society for Endocrinology or Bioscientifica.
Authors may download a copy of this agreement in advance.
Society for Endocrinology Journal Awards
The Society for Endocrinology awards a prize for the best paper published in Endocrine-Related Cancer
annually. All published papers will automatically be considered for the prize. Further details can be found on the journal awards page