| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
The journal editors and publication oversight committees of The Endocrine Society are dedicated to upholding high ethical standards in its publications and expect authors and reviewers to do the same.
Endocrinology is published by The Endocrine Society and functions under the auspices of the Publications Committee. The daily functions of the journal are managed by an appointed Editor-in-Chief, Editors, and Editorial Board Members. The policy of the journal is to administer the peer review and publication process of submitted manuscripts that encompass studies directed at understanding various aspects of endocrinology.
Note that your author account will be the same for Endocrinology, Molecular Endocrinology, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and Endocrine Reviews. Authors submitting manuscripts for publication in Endocrinology are submitting their manuscript to The Endocrine Society Central Journals Office whose database is accessible to the Editors of all Endocrinology Society Journals.
All submissions MUST INCLUDE:
The number of references cited should be kept to a reasonable minimum; to this end, appropriate recent reviews should be cited whenever possible.
Examples of the reference style that should be used are given below. The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in the Index Medicus.
Journal articles and abstracts: List the names of all authors in each reference. Failure to do so will cause a delay in the review process. The citation of unpublished observations, of personal communications, and of manuscripts in preparation or submitted for publication is not permitted in the bibliography. Such citations should be inserted at appropriate places in the text, in parentheses and without serial number, or be presented in the footnotes. The citation of manuscripts accepted for publication but not yet in print is permitted in the bibliography provided the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and the name of the journal in which they appear are supplied. Listing a manuscript as "in press" without a DOI and journal title is not permitted. If references to personal communications are made, authors are encouraged to keep written proof of the exchange. If it is necessary to cite an abstract because it contains substantive data not published elsewhere, it must be designated at the end of the reference [e.g., 68:313 (Abstract)]. The author is responsible for the accuracy of references.
Books: List all authors or editors.
Sample References
For general aid in the preparation of manuscripts, authors should consult: CBE Style Manual: A Guide for Authors, Editors and Publishers. 5th ed. Bethesda, MD: Council of Biology Editors; 1983.
Figure formats: All digital art should pass Rapid Inspector and be in one of the three acceptable formats: TIFF, EPS, or PowerPoint. PowerPoint figures may experience problems when converted to PDF; therefore, carefully inspect the PDF after it is created by E-Review. Staff will not be able to note any problems from PowerPoint files once the PDF is sent. Please follow the instructions at Cadmus Digital Art as to acceptable fonts and density of figures.
Sizing the figure: The author is responsible for providing digital art that has been properly sized, cropped, and has adequate space between images. Plan the size of the figure to fill 1, 1.5, or 2 columns in the printed journal (see chart below for dimensions). In most cases, figures should be prepared for 1-column width. Produce original art at the size it should appear in the printed journal. (Note for PowerPoint users: The sizing instructions do not apply if you are submitting PowerPoint files for print production in E-Review. On the submission page, check boxes to indicate that the figures are the correct size and resolution.)
1 column = 18 picas, 7.5 cm, 3.0 in
1.5. columns = 30 picas, 12.5 cm, 5.0 in
2 columns = 38 picas, 16.0 cm, 6.4 in
Lettering: At 100% size, no lettering should be smaller than 8 point (0.3 cm high) or larger than 12 point (0.4 cm high). Use bold and solid lettering. Lines should be thick, solid, and no less than 1-point rule. Avoid the use of reverse type (white lettering on a darker background). Avoid lettering on top of shaded or textured areas. Titles should be clear and informative. Keep wording on figures to a minimum, and confine any explanation of figures to their separate-page legends. Label only one vertical and one horizontal side of a figure. Freehand lettering or drawing is unacceptable.
Color Figures: Figures should now be submitted as RGB (red, green, blue) format. Saving color figures to this format will be more convenient for authors as RGB is the standard default on most programs. Color images will be preserved as RGB up until the time of printing and will be posted online in their original RGB form. Using RGB color mode for online images will be a significant improvement for figures that contain fluorescent blues, reds, and greens. Therefore the online journal will accurately reflect the true color of the images the way the author intended. For print, the images will be converted to CMYK through an automated color conversion process.
Shading: Avoid the use of shading, but if unavoidable, use a coarse rather than a fine screen setting (80-100 line screen is preferred). Avoid 1-20% and 70-99% shading; make differing shades vary by at least 20%, i.e., 25%, 45%, 65%. Instead of shading, denote variations in graphs or drawings by cross-hatching; solid black; or vertical, horizontal, or diagonal striping. Avoid the use of dots.
Grouped figures: For grouped figures, indicate the layout in a diagram. Place grouped figures so that they can be printed in 1 column width with uniform margins. Indicate magnification in the legends and by internal reference markers in the photographs. Their length should represent the fraction or multiple of a micrometer, appropriate to the magnification.
Graphs: Graphs with axis measures containing very large or small numbers should convert to easily readable notations. Example: For an ordinate range of "counts per minute" values from 1,000 to 20,000, the true value may be multiplied by 10-3 (scale would read from 1 to 20) and the ordinate axis display "cpm (x10-3)." Similarly, for a Scatchard plot with values ranging from 0.1 to 2 femtomolar (10-15 M), the scale may run from 0.1 to 2 with the abscissa labeled "M(x1015)." Three-dimensional bar graphs will not be published if the information they refer to is only two-dimensional.
Supplemental Data files should be submitted through E-Review at the time of manuscript submission, and will be reviewed along with the manuscript. The files should be uploaded in the field marked "Upload Supplemental Data Files", and should NOT be attached with the manuscript and figure files. Authors submitting hard copies may submit Supplemental Data on a separate disk clearly marked "Supplemental Data for the Web", and with the manuscript title, corresponding author's name, file names, and name and version of programs used to create the files. Authors should refer to the Supplemental Data in the manuscript at an appropriate point in the text or figure/table legend.
The file formats listed below may be used for Supplemental Data. Provide a brief description of each item in a separate HTML or Word file (i.e., figure or table legends, captions for movie or sound clips, etc.). Do not save figure numbers, legends, or author names as part of an image. File sizes should not exceed 5 MB. Images should not exceed 500 pixels in width or height. Do not use tabs or spaces for Word or WordPefect tables; please use the table functions available within these word processing programs to prepare tables. For web pages, provide a complete list of files and instructions for creating directories.
.htm, HTML*
.jpg, JPEG image*
.gif, Graphical image
.pdf, Adobe Portable Document Format
.xls, MS Excel Spreadsheet
.mov Quick Time
.wav, Sound
.doc, MS Word 6 documents**
.txt, Plain ASCII*
*These files can be viewed directly on standard web browsers.
**MS Word may be used for text only.
Reviewers should not review a manuscript if: 1) they do not think that they are competent to assess the research described, 2) they believe there is a conflict of interest or personal or professional relationship with the author(s) that might bias their assessment of the manuscript, or (3) there is any other situation that could bias their review. Employment at the same institution as one of the authors does not automatically represent a conflict. Having previously reviewed the article for another journal does not disqualify a reviewer, although the editor should be informed so the reviewer's perspective can be considered. In circumstances when reviewers need to recuse themselves, they should notify the editor promptly, preferably with an explanation. If reviewers are uncertain whether they should recuse themselves, they should consult with the editor. The reviewer should strive to provide accurate, detailed, and constructive criticisms, and the review should be supported by appropriate references, especially if unfavorable. The reviewer should also note whether the work of others is properly cited. If the reviewer notes any substantial resemblance of the manuscript being reviewed to a published paper or to a manuscript submitted at the same time to another journal, they should promptly report this to the editor.
No part of the manuscript under review should ordinarily be revealed to another individual without the permission of the editor. If a reviewer consults a colleague on a particular point, this fact, and the name of the collaborator or consultant, should be reported to the editor, preferably in advance. With these exceptions, a reviewer must obtain through the editor written permission from the authors to use or disclose any of the unpublished content of a manuscript under review.
Sample Size and Multiple Testing: Studies should include sufficient samples to have the power to detect an effect. In addition, since multiple hypotheses are often tested [e.g., multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), sub-stratification, and multiple phenotypes], analyses and interpretations should account for the influence of such multiple testing on the findings' biological and clinical significance.
Validation Samples: The most rigorous association studies should include both a testing (or training) sample set and an independent validation series.
Functional Data: Functional data strengthens association data if the functional assay(s) have demonstrable relevance to the associated phenotype. In some instances, association studies with a single testing sample set and highly relevant functional data may be acceptable without an independent validation series.
Single Genetic Marker (e.g., SNP) versus Whole Gene/Genome Studies: Single SNP studies are acceptable when the particular SNP has strong prior claims for involvement in the phenotype of interest. However, it is desirable to examine genetic variation at least across and flanking the gene of interest when this is feasible.
Negative Association Studies: Well-designed and executed association studies that demonstrate significant negative findings will be considered if the gene in question has clear relevance to disease pathogenesis or has been implicated in prior published association studies.
Pulse analysis: Data from studies of pulsatile hormone secretion should be analyzed using a validated, objective pulse detection algorithm. The algorithm used should require that false-positive rates of pulse detection be defined in relation to the measurement error of the data set being analyzed, and the methods used to determine the measurement error should be described. The author(s) also should describe the methods used: 1) to deal with missing or undetectable values; 2) to determine peak frequency, interpeak interval, and pulse amplitude; and 3) for statistical comparisons of peak parameters.
Data Analysis: 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 (generally P < 0.05) should be specified.
Full details of statistical tests should be included. Statistical values with the degrees of freedom as subscripts together with the probability values should be reported (e.g., Fx,x = xxx, P < .xx; or tx = xxx, P < .xx). Statistical tables should not be inserted in manuscripts.
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 contrasts 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 analysis, it is desirable to show 95% confidence limits.
When data points are fitted with lines (as in Scatchard or Lineweaver-Burk plots), the method used for fitting (graphical, least squares, computer program) should be specified. If differences in slopes and/or axis intercepts are claimed for plotted lines, these should be supported by statistical analysis.
Useful references for statistical methods are McArthur, J. W., and T. Colten (eds.), Statistics in Endocrinology, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970; and Finney, D. J., Statistical Method in Biologic Assays, ed. 2, Griffin, London, 1967.
Deviations from these guidelines will be considered as potential ethical violations.
Note that this is an evolving issue, but these basic principles apply regardless of changes in the technical environment. Authors should be aware that they must provide original images when requested to do so by the Editor-in-Chief who may wish to clarify an uncertainty or concern. [Please see paper of Rossner and Yamada (Journal of Cell Biology, 2004, 166:11-15), which was consulted in developing these policy issues, for additional discussion and the CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, published by the Council of Science Editors, 2006.]
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| Endocrinology | Endocrine Reviews | J. Clin. End. & Metab. |
| Molecular Endocrinology | Recent Prog. Horm. Res. | All Endocrine Journals |