About the American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
The American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism publishes original, mechanistic studies on the physiology of endocrine and metabolic systems. Physiological, cellular, and molecular studies in whole animals or humans will be considered. Specific themes include, but are not limited to, mechanisms of hormone and growth factor action; hormonal and nutritional regulation of metabolism, inflammation, microbiome and energy balance; integrative organ cross talk; paracrine and autocrine control of endocrine cells; function and activation of hormone receptors; endocrine or metabolic control of channels, transporters, and membrane function; temporal analysis of hormone secretion and metabolism; and mathematical/kinetic modeling of metabolism. Novel molecular, immunological, or biophysical studies of hormone action are also welcome.
Article Types
Research Articles
Research articles present important new research results including the entire contents of a research project. Research articles include an abstract, an introduction, methods and results sections, a discussion, and relevant citations. Inclusion of links to data supplements and source data are permitted; see policy. Articles are peer-reviewed.
Perspectives
This category of article serves as a forum in which to disseminate new and original lines of thinking in physiology. These short articles go beyond the scope of invited reviews and should present original ideas that can be derived from our current knowledge base. Some Perspectives articles may challenge current dogma and will be considered for publication based on the scientific merit of the argument presented. These Perspective articles will be subject to peer review. Some articles will be invited, but unsolicited articles are welcome. Perspectives must be authored by experts in the field under discussion, such expertise having been demonstrated by original research published by the author(s) in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the major services, such as PubMed. Perspectives should not include original, unpublished data. In all cases, determining whether a proposed Perspective is within scope and acceptable for publication is a matter committed to the discretion of the editors. These articles should be about 1,500 words long, excluding references, and may include two figures.
Frontiers
A Frontiers article is a type of Perspective. Frontiers articles must be authored by experts in the field under discussion, such expertise having been demonstrated by original research published by the author(s) in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the major services, such as PubMed.These articles are submitted as the Perspectives article type and should be identified with a "Frontiers:" prefix in the title of the submission. The Frontiers series aims to provide a concise, cutting-edge analysis of a field or a research question. To this end, these articles will identify:
What is the main question?
When/how was it first formulated?
What have been the major developments in this field/question?
What are the major controversies/roadblocks in this field/question?
What are the most pressing questions?
What are the implications of this field/question?
Leaders in diverse areas will be invited.
Innovative Methodology
Research in physiology depends crucially on the development of new methods of data collection and analysis. Manuscripts submitted under this category should describe new methods for the recording, collection, and/or analysis of data relevant to understanding how the physiological system works. Manuscripts will be reviewed taking into consideration the following criteria:
The novelty of the new method. Papers should not be minor incremental improvements of old methods, but have a real new component.
The manuscript must describe the method in sufficient detail to enable others to implement or replicate the method or procedure.
The manuscript should carefully describe the advantages and disadvantages of the new method, with its limitations and strengths laid out clearly for the reader.
The manuscript must illustrate the use of the method to demonstrate that it actually works. It is not necessary to use the method in an extensive study of a biological problem, but a "proof of principle" demonstration is required. Where possible, the method should be applied to real physiological data.
Manuscripts should be of the length required to meet these criteria. Extensive technical details, mathematical derivations, etc. can be placed into an Appendix if they will interrupt the flow of the manuscript but may be additionally helpful to others wishing to implement the technique.
Review Articles
Review articles provide synthesis of state-of-the-art knowledge in a defined area highlighting new questions and pointing to future research directions. They encompass examination of biological processes, systems, and models, and technologies for their study. The primary purpose is to educate readers by providing a comprehensive view of completed works presented in a concise, unified format; however, appropriate inclusion of unpublished data is permissible. Utilization of figures is encouraged. Typically, reviews are invited and all are peer-reviewed. Review articles must be authored by experts in the field under discussion, such expertise having been demonstrated by original research published by the author(s) in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the major services, such as PubMed.
Typically, reviews are invited and all are peer-reviewed. Authors should email a pre-submission inquiry—including a working title, author and affiliation lists, abstract, and brief outline of the content—to the editorial office for approval by the editors.
Please note that prior to review, all review articles will be examined for originality using CrossCheck screening software to compare the submitted text to all available literature, including previous publications from the same author(s).
Editorials
Editorials provide commentary by the Editor, Associate Editors, and other scientists and experts on issues related to the Journal's mission as well as of general interest to our readers. Unsolicited editorials will be considered for publication. Acceptance will reside with the editors. Editorials must be authored by experts in the field under discussion, such expertise having been demonstrated by original research published by the author(s) in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the major services, such as PubMed.
Editorial Focus
Editorial Focus articles are commentaries on papers of unusual interest published in the journal that were chosen by the Editor to be highlighted. They should describe the most important conclusions of the paper; place the paper into context with the current state-of-the-art; highlight controversial issues; when relevant, denote strengths and weaknesses of the paper; and review questions that remain to be addressed. Editorial Focus articles must be authored by experts in the field under discussion, such expertise having been demonstrated by original research published by the author(s) in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the major services, such as PubMed. Editorial Focus manuscripts are limited to 1,000 words in the main text, 10 references, and two tables or figures (combined). Manuscripts may not include abstracts.
Letters to the Editor
In all cases, determining whether a proposed Letter to the Editor is acceptable for publication is a matter committed to the discretion of the editors. Letters, including an informative title, should be short, approximately one journal column (500 words). Letters are reviewed by the appropriate editor and are subject to editing and possible abridgment. Letters to the Editor must be authored by experts in the field under discussion, such expertise having been demonstrated by original research published by the author(s) in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the major services, such as PubMed. Letters to the Editor should not include original, unpublished data. If a proposed Letter is found acceptable, a copy will be sent to the author of the original article if applicable; that author will have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal with new material that will be considered for publication with the Letter. Letters to the Editor may also simply address matters of general interest to the readership.
Categories
Various article types can be published under the following Categories, or headings:
Calls for Papers
Calls for Papers will have headings that change depending on the topic. Manuscripts of any type may be submitted in response to an announced Call for Papers. These manuscripts are peer reviewed, and are published together under the topic heading.
Special Sections
Manuscripts of any type may be submitted to one of these Special Sections.
Historical Articles
Manuscripts on the history of physiology may be submitted to the Editor.
Cores of Reproducibility in Physiology (CORP) - Invited article
Experts will be invited to write a detailed, instructional paper, either a research article or review article, that represents best practice in physiology for a particular method or equipment that is in broad, common use. This series of articles is available across all APS journals and is developed in response to the challenge to improve transparency and reproducibility in published research results. To build on the value of the collective best practices the title of the paper should start with "Cores of Reproducibility in Physiology: ............." where the specific device or method would appear after the semicolon. The following key elements, must be included:
A description of the method/device and its purported use(s)
Details regarding proper use, including calibration, validation, range, sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility (addressing variance of the method itself, within-subject variance and between-subject variance)
Particular details of practical importance that may not be widely appreciated - especially where things can go wrong.
A critical discussion of what the method/device can do if used properly
A critical discussion of limitations of the method/device (what it cannot do or is not intended to do)
These invited articles will be peer reviewed with standard rigor and in light of meeting the above-listed criteria.
Rapid Reports
Rapid Reports are short papers presenting important new findings that could potentially have a major impact on the field. The manuscript does not need to tell a complete story but must be compelling, innovative, and novel. The manuscript should not exceed 4,000 words, including references and figure legends, and 4 figures and/or tables. Rapid Reports will be peer reviewed within 10 days. If requested, authors will be asked to submit a revision 14 days after the first decision. A final decision on first revisions will be made within 5 days of resubmission. Authors will be encouraged to fully comply with reviewer comments and submit only one revision. All Rapid Reports accepted for publication will be highlighted in the online journal as "featured papers" and have the option for a podcast at the author's and editors' discretion. Note: Only video files are permitted as supplemental data for Rapid Reports. Other types of supplemental files (e.g., figures, tables, appendixes, data sets) are not permitted.
Point:Counterpoint
This series of debates was initiated for the American Journal of Physiology – Endocrinology and Metabolism because we believe an important means of searching for truth is through debate where contradictory viewpoints are put forward. This dialectic process whereby a thesis is advanced, then opposed by an antithesis, with a synthesis subsequently arrived at, is a powerful and often entertaining method for gaining knowledge and for understanding the source of a controversy. Before reading these Point:Counterpoint manuscripts or preparing a brief commentary on the content, the reader should understand that authors on each side of the debate are expected to advance a polarized viewpoint and to select the most convincing data to support their position. This approach differs markedly from the review article where the reader expects the author to present balanced coverage of the topic. Each of the authors has been strictly limited in the lengths of both the manuscript (1,200 words) and the rebuttal (400). The number of references to publications is also limited to 30, and citation of unpublished findings is prohibited. Complete instructions for Point:Counterpoint submissions are as follows. Point-Counterpoint articles must be authored by experts in the field under discussion, such expertise having been demonstrated by original research published by the author(s) in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the major services, such as PubMed.
Instructions
An important means of searching for truth is through debate where contradictory viewpoints are put forward. By hearing explicit accounts of contradictory viewpoints, the listener gains a better understanding of the source of a controversy. This dialectic process whereby a thesis is advanced, then opposed by an antithesis, and subsequently arriving at a synthesis is a powerful, and often entertaining, method for gaining knowledge and for understanding the source of the controversy.
The reader of a review article expects the author to provide balanced coverage of a topic, whereas the listener at a pro-and-con debate expects the presenters to advance polarized viewpoints. The presenters select the most convincing data to support their stand; this is not the venue to present data that support the opponent's case. Because the presenter puts a spin on interpretation of data, a debate can be amusing as well as educational. The presenter should stay focused on the subject under discussion, and a case is best made by judiciously limiting the pieces of evidence -- a long litany loses the reader's attention. Presenters should also avoid insider allusions, abbreviations, and jargon.
The title of each article will be a declarative statement of the type, "Muscle fatigue is (is not) caused by hydrogen ions” rather than an answer to a question. (The two sides of the debate will be cited separately.) Each author is allowed up to 1200 words to make one side of the argument; in addition, each author may include up to 30 references. Since topics for debate are by nature controversial, cited references should emphasize recent publications. You may use one single-panel figure. If reproducing a figure from a previously published manuscript, please send permission to reprint right away. Do not cite any unpublished data, including abstracts. If you wish to cite any “in press” manuscripts, you must submit copies of the manuscripts just as soon as the article is accepted so that they can be shared with the author of the opposite side of the debate. You may choose a co-author for your manuscript if you wish. We also encourage you to recruit co-authors from laboratories outside of your own.
It is important that both Point and Counterpoint manuscripts be submitted to the Journal before each set of authors view the opponent’s manuscript.
When both manuscripts are received and judged to be acceptable, each presenter is sent their opponent's manuscript and given 7 days to submit a rebuttal containing up to 400 words; in addition, each author may include up to 10 references. Please also reference the original article you are refuting. The time to write a response may seem brief, but it is longer than the presenter gets on the podium in front of a live audience. New evidence should not be unfolded in your rebuttal. Instead, the rebuttal should consist of counter-arguments to the points advanced by your opponent in his or her primary manuscript. The listing and numbering of references in the rebuttal need to be independent of the initial portion of the manuscript.
When submitting the manuscript and the rebuttal, please state the number of words on the cover sheet. Manuscripts that exceed word or reference limitation will be returned to the authors. Articles in the pro-and-con series are subject to peer-review by the editor and editorial consultants, and acceptance cannot be guaranteed in advance.
Please be aware that we are soliciting brief commentaries from the readership on your Point: Counterpoint manuscript. These will be published simultaneously with your debate both online and in the print publication as well as in subsequent issues of the journal. You will be sent these commentaries prior to publication and given a chance to submit a final comment of your own (up to 500 words and 5 references). If you have any questions, please contact Karen Dodson by e-mail at kdodson@physiology.org.
Mini-Reviews
Mini-Reviews are concise, punchy, and up-to-the-minute summaries of important new and emerging fields. The purpose of Mini-Reviews is to introduce readers to advances and trends in physiology that are outside their own area of expertise. Mini-Reviews should provide a synthesis of new areas of biology in a manner that is accessible to nonspecialists in the field. They should focus on advances in the past 1-3 years, although some historical context is permissible. The manuscript should be approximately 3,000 words, excluding references, with 1-3 figures and/or tables, and up to 50 references. The inclusion of previously published figures is permitted provided that permission is obtained from the copyright holder and the source is acknowledged. Inclusion of unpublished data is also permissible. Authors are encouraged to use figures to summarize biological processes. Typically, Mini-Reviews are invited although presubmission enquiries to the editors are encouraged. All Mini-Reviews are peer-reviewed. Periodically, collections of Mini-Reviews that are in related areas or associated with meetings or symposia will be assembled by the editors in Themes.
Note: Prior to publication all Mini-Reviews will be examined for originality using CrossCheck screening software to compare the submitted text to all available literature, including previous publications from the same author(s).
