We ask our authors to continue submitting manuscripts and revising them in line with the reviewers’ comments. Likewise, we ask our reviewers to still commit to reviewing manuscripts submitted to EJE. However, we will be very accommodating to authors and reviewers with regards to the urgent time constraints placed upon them, and provide you with more time for your tasks if you need it. Simply contact the Editorial Office and we will grant extensions to deadlines as required.
In turn we would ask you to be lenient with us if the turnaround time of EJE papers becomes slightly longer than you are used to.
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 40% 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.
The journal aims to return a decision on a peer-reviewed paper in less than a month.
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.
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.
The abstract should be no more than 250 words in length. Please divide up your abstract using the headings Objective (giving the context of the study), Design, Methods, 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.
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.
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 in numerical order.
In the reference list
List references in the order they are cited in the text.
List all authors.
Reference in the following format:
1. Inkster S, Yue W & Brodie A. Human testicular aromatase: immunocytochemical and biochemical studies. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1995 80 1941–1947.
2. Matthews CH, Borgato S, Beck-Peccoz P, Adams M, Tone Y, Gambino G, Casagrande S, Tedeschini G, Benedetti A & Chatterjee VK. Primary amenorrhea and infertility due to a mutation in the β-subunit of follicle-stimulating hormone. Nature Genetics 5 83–86.
3. Royer P. Hormonal regulation of calcium metabolism: biology and pathology. In Pediatric Endocrinology , edn 2, ch. 6, pp 477–543. Eds J-C Job & M Pierson. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
List a maximum of ten authors. Where there are more than ten authors, list the first ten and then use et al.
Please use Vancouver style.
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
European Journal of Endocrinology 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. Colour format: CMYK (not RGB).
European Journal of Endocrinology 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
7. Figures/ tables
Review submissions should be limited to 5000 words. We recommend a maximum of 60 references for review articles, with 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.
Review articles are normally by invitation and undergo peer review by experts in the field. Authors intending to submit unsolicited reviews should send an outline of the proposed article to the editorial office
Please note that systematic reviews, meta-analyses and literature reviews are classified as clinical studies.
These are reports, with up to 1500 words and up to 2 tables or figures, and which report an important message or data that is very interesting but does not yet fulfil the rigorous criteria that we apply to clinical research studies.
Debate articles aim to cover the latest controversies in clinical endocrinology. Debates take the format of a general introduction written jointly by the proposer and opposer, followed by two distinct sections presenting the evidence for each point of view, followed by concluding remarks. Debates are published as single articles, providing readers with an excellent overview resource for topics around which there is no current consensus. Debate articles are commissioned by the editorial board and undergo peer review by experts in the field. If you would like to suggest a debate topic please submit a brief outline to the editorial office.
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Clinical practice guidelines are produced by the European Society of Endocrinology
, either in collaboration with other Societies or independently, and are aimed at providing recommendations for patient care for specified conditions. The ESE Clinical Committee
play a leading role in the development of guidelines.
The European Society of Endocrinology’s clinical guidelines are reviewed by our members and relevant interested parties (such as patient support groups) before publication and are presented during the annual European Congress of Endocrinology. Where it is considered beneficial, patient support literature will be prepared alongside the guidelines to provide patients with assistance in understanding and managing their condition.
Position statements are submitted by professional task forces, networks or society working groups, detailing an official view on a specific issue. Statements present all relevant background information and the rationale behind any recommendations set out.
All Editorials must be a maximum 1500 words (including references, legends and tables) and 10 references.
Commentaries are typically invited by the Editor-in-Chief, although unsolicited commentaries will be considered. Commentaries are opinion articles that will examine novel concepts and findings introduced into the scientific record. They are typically no more than 2500 words in length, should have no more than eight references, and have no figures or tables.
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 European Journal of Endocrinology
or a topical issue in the field are of broad interest to the readership. Authors should submit letters through the journal’s submission system
for consideration by the Editor-in-Chief.
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 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
- 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.
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.
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. European Journal of Endocrinology
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
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, eg TGFBR2 not TGFβR2
- Avoid hyphens unless they are part of the approved symbol, eg IGF1 not IGF-1
- Use arabic rather than roman numerals, eg BMPR2 not BMPRII
Follow species-specific formatting standards as follows:
Humans, non-human primates and domestic species
- Gene symbols should be in italics with all letters capitalised, eg SOX2
- Protein designations should be the same as the gene symbols but not italicised, eg SOX2
- Please use symbols approved by the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC)
Mice and rats
- Gene symbols should be in italics with only the first letter capitalised, eg Sox2
- Protein designations should be the same as the gene symbols except that all letters should be capitalised and in roman (ie not italicised), eg 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
Digital image integrity
No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. The groupings of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields or exposures must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (eg using dividing lines) and in the text of the figure legend. 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. Nonlinear adjustments (eg changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend. 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.
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.
Digital image guidelines
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)
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 (eg 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. In particular:
- 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.
Preprint and data repositories
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.
Licence and Copyright
Articles are considered on the understanding that, if they are accepted for publication, the entire copyright shall pass to the European Society of Endocrinology. The corresponding author is requested to digitally sign a copyright transfer agreement to this effect.
(Please note that when the Open Access option has been taken, copyright remains with the author(s).)