Journal of Neuroendocrinology
Copyright © 2014 British Society for Neuroendocrinology
Edited By: Julian G. Mercer
Impact Factor: 3.331
ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2012: 47/122 (Endocrinology & Metabolism); 98/252 (Neurosciences)
Online ISSN: 1365-2826
Effective with the 2014 volume, this journal will be published in an online-only format.
Print subscription and single issue sales are available from Wiley’s Print-on-Demand Partner. To order online click through to the ordering portal from the journal’s subscribe and renew page on WOL.
CrossCheck Plagiarism Software
We would like to inform our authors that we now detect plagiarism more easily through the use of CrossCheck plagiarism software. The journal to which you are submitting your manuscript employs a plagiarism detection system. By submitting your manuscript to this journal you accept that your manuscript may be screened for plagiarism against previously published works.
Submission is considered on the conditions that papers are previously unpublished, and are not offered simultaneously elsewhere; that all authors have read and approved the content, and all authors have also declared all competing interests; and that the work complies with Ethical Policies of the Journal, and has been conducted under internationally accepted ethical standards after relevant ethical review.
The Journal of Neuroendocrinology publishes high quality research that makes a significant contribution to the understanding of neuroendocrine mechanisms.
The Journal of Neuroendocrinology prefers to receive all manuscript submissions electronically. To submit a manuscript, please follow the instructions below.
1. Point your web browser to the Journal's ScholarOne Manuscripts (formally known as Manuscript Central) homepage (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jne).
2. Log-in (click the 'Create Account' option if you are a first-time user of ScholarOne Manuscripts) and select 'Author Center'.
Submitting Your Manuscript
1. After you have logged in, click the 'Submit a Manuscript' link in the menu bar; enter data and answer questions as appropriate, clicking the 'Next' button on each screen to save your work and advance to the next screen, as necessary.
2. You are required to upload your files. Click on the 'Browse' button and locate the file on your computer, and select the designation of each file in the drop down next to the Browse button. When you have selected all files you wish to upload, click the 'Upload Files' button.
3. Review your submission (in both PDF and HTML formats) before sending to the Journal. Click the 'Submit' button when you are finished reviewing.
You may suspend a submission at any phase before clicking the 'Submit' button and save it to submit later. After submission, you will receive a confirmation e-mail. You can also access ScholarOne Manuscripts any time to check the status of your manuscript. The Journal will inform you by e-mail once a decision has been made.
Submission of an article will, in itself, imply that the research is original, has not been published (except in abstract form) nor is it being considered for publication elsewhere. Authors should suggest the names of up to three referees, but the Editor-in-Chief will make the final choice. Authors should not suggest any person working in the same institution as any of the authors, or any person with whom any of the authors are currently collaborating.
Full papers should be arranged as follows: (i) A title page with full title, authors names and affiliations, the address and e-mail address to which correspondence and proofs should be sent, a short title of less than 60 characters, and up to five key words for indexing; (ii) An Abstract suitable for a general reader, of up to 300 words without references and only essential abbreviations; (iii) Introduction; (iv) Materials and Methods; (v) Results; (vi) Discussion; (vii) Acknowledgements; (viii) References (up to 50); (ix) Figure legends; (x) Tables. Articles are typically 8-10 published pages with 4-8 figures, but shorter articles that report self-contained studies of exceptional or topical interest are also acceptable. These should be formatted in the same style as original articles. Authors should consult a current issue of the Journal to check that the layout and style of the manuscript conform to the Journal’s, and they should read the style guidelines below
Copyright Transfer Agreement
If your paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author for the paper will receive an email prompting them to login into Author Services; where via the Wiley Author Licensing Service (WALS) they will be able to complete the license agreement on behalf of all authors on the paper.
For authors signing the copyright transfer agreement
If the OnlineOpen option is not selected the corresponding author will be presented with the copyright transfer agreement (CTA) to sign. The terms and conditions of the CTA can be previewed in the samples associated with the Copyright FAQs below:
CTA Terms and Conditions http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp
For authors choosing OnlineOpen
If the OnlineOpen option is selected the corresponding author will have a choice of the following Creative Commons License Open Access Agreements (OAA):
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License OAA
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial -NoDerivs License OAA
To preview the terms and conditions of these open access agreements please visit the Copyright FAQs hosted on Wiley Author Services http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp and visit http://www.wileyopenaccess.com/details/content/12f25db4c87/Copyright--License.html.
If you select the OnlineOpen option and your research is funded by The Wellcome Trust and members of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) you will be given the opportunity to publish your article under a CC-BY license supporting you in complying with Wellcome Trust and Research Councils UK requirements. For more information on this policy and the Journal’s compliant self-archiving policy please visit: http://www.wiley.com/go/funderstatement.
For RCUK and Wellcome Trust authors click on the link below to preview the terms and conditions of this license:
Creative Commons Attribution License OAA
To preview the terms and conditions of these open access agreements please visit the Copyright FAQs hosted on Wiley Author Services http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp and visit http://www.wileyopenaccess.com/details/content/12f25db4c87/Copyright--License.html.
Contemporary Review Articles
Contemporary Review Articles are normally submitted following a direct invitation from the Editor-in-Chief, and are intended to stress developments in a rapidly changing area of neuroendocrinology, to describe new developments in techniques, or to provide a critique of a controversial subject. However, authors may submit Review Articles directly to the Editor-in-Chief for evaluation. All Review Articles, whether invited or not, are subject to rigorous peer review.
Young Investigator Perspectives
The Journal will publish short, review-style articles (3000-4000 words with up to 40 references), from scientists still establishing their careers. Nominations for authors will initially be solicited from established principal investigators with a Young Investigator being defined as having received an advanced professional degree within the past 6 years at the time of nomination. Authors should include their own ideas of the critical issues in a topical field. The principal investigator will not be a co-author, but nomination will commit them to undertaking a preliminary editorial role. Perspectives articles will also be subject to standard peer review.
Manuscripts should be written in English, in accordance with the Oxford English Dictionary. Examples of rules include:
ise not ize (eg characterise, visualise, anaesthetise, luteinising)
ae not e (eg anaesthetic, anaemic, chimaera)
oe not e (eg oestrogen, oestradiol, dioestrous, pro-oestrus)
double L (eg signalling, labelled)
re not er (eg fibre, microtitre, centre, metre)
our not or (eg behaviour, colour)
oph not ope (eg somatotroph, gonadotrophin)
gogue not gog (eg secretagogue, analogue)
ph not f (eg sulphate)
mme not m (eg programme)
neurone not neuron
grey not gray
Abbreviations should be kept to a minimum. Abbreviations should always be used when something is better known or used more naturally in its abbreviated form than in its full form. For instance, GABA, NMDA, POMC, TTX, mRNA, EPSP, IPSP, ACTH, LHRH (or GnRH), and OVLT should always be abbreviated. It is normally unnecessary to abbreviate, for instance, oxytocin, somatostatin, progesterone, noradrenaline, dopamine, median eminence, or pituitary. For an expanded list, see our website at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jne.
Except where it is specifically stated that an abbreviation should not be defined, please define on the first appearance in the abstract, the first appearance in the body of the main text, and in the figure legends.
References in the text are numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned. References cited only in legends should be numbered in accordance with a sequence established by the first mention in the text of the particular table or illustration. The references should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus. A list of abbreviated forms of the more commonly cited titles is available. Journal and book references should be prepared as in the following examples:
1. Young LJ, Huot B, Nilsen R, Wang Z, Insel TR. Species differences in central oxytocin receptor gene expression: comparative analysis of promoter sequences. J Neuroendocrinol 1996; 8: 777-783.
2. Bourque CW, Oliet SHR. Mechanosensitive ion channels and osmoreception in magnocellular neurosecretory neurons. In: Saito T, Kurokawa K, Yoshida S, eds. Neurohypophysis: Recent Progress of Vasopressin and Oxytocin Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1995: 205-213.
We recommend the use of a tool such as Reference Manager (http://www.refman.com/) for reference management and formatting. Reference Manager reference styles can be searched for here: http://www.refman.com/support/rmstyles.asp.
Figures and Tables
Figures and tables should be provided separately from the main text, and should be numbered(Arabic numerals) in the order in which they are referred to in the text. Legends should be separate from the figures and included in the main text of the manuscript, after the references.
For production purposes, it is best if you can supply figures in TIFF format; however, it is also possible to use Illustrator or Photoshop software saved in the format '.eps' or '.tif'. If you are unable to provide these specified formats, please provide the figures in as many different file formats as possible. The figure resolution/specification for various types of original figures, at their final size, should be as follows:
Line art - Minimum 600 dpi
Halftone (i.e. both B/W and Colour photographs) - Minimum 300 dpi
Line and tone (line art and halftone combined) - Minimum 600 dpi
As a guide, if the electronic files are viewed at 400% on the computer screen and they look pixellated in any way then they will NOT be of sufficient quality for publication. For further information on file formats, please see the instructions on our website at site http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/illustration.asp
Online Supporting Information can include additional explanatory notes, data sets, videos, lists, figures or tables that will not be published in the print edition of the journal and which are ancillary to, rather than central to, the article. Supporting Information must be approved by the Editors and should be supplied as a single PDF file headed by the title of the paper and the authors' names, addresses and contact information. Supporting Information will be published exactly as supplied and it is the author's responsibility to ensure that the material is logically laid out, adequately described, and in a format accessible to readers. Animations and other moving images or sound files in standard formats must be supplied as separate files. Figures and tables in Supporting Information should be referred to in the main text and labelled Fig. S1, Fig. S2 or Table S1, etc., in the order cited.
Full guidelines and information on acceptable file formats may be found at http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/suppmat.asp.
Authors are encouraged to submit colour figures, and these will be published at no additional cost in the online version of the Journal.
Conflict of Interest
Authors are expected to disclose any commercial or other associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article, as defined by the COPE guidelines on good publication practice. All funding sources supporting the work, and institutional or corporate affiliations of the authors, should be acknowledged on the title page. Articles are considered for publication on the understanding that neither the article nor its essential substance has been or will be published elsewhere before appearing in Journal of Neuroendocrinology. Abstracts and press reports published in connection with scientific meetings are not considered as publications.
Pre-Submission English-language editing
If you are not a native English speaker, we strongly recommend that you have your manuscript professionally edited before submission. A list of companies that will edit you manuscript for a fee can be found here http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/english_language.asp . Professional editing is not compulsory, but will mean that reviewers are better able to read and assess your manuscript. Use of one of these companies does not guarantee acceptance of preference for publication in this journal.
Improving your title and summary
To maximise readership, we recommend you make your titles as snappy as possible. Moreover, you can make some simple changes to your title and summary to improve your article's ranking in Search Engines: guidelines on this can be found here.
Please review your title and abstract in the light of these suggestions, to improve your paper prior to submission.
'Accepted Articles' (previously know as OnlineAccepted') is a service whereby peer reviewed, accepted articles are published online as and when they are ready, prior to their ultimate inclusion in an online issue and without having been copy-edited or typeset. This service is designed to ensure the earliest possible circulation of research papers immediately after acceptance. Readers should note that articles published within Accepted Articles have been fully refereed, but should not be considered the version of record. Wiley cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these articles; nor do the views and opinions expressed necessarily reflect those of Wiley.
OnlineOpen is available to authors of primary research articles who wish to make their article freely available to non-subscribers on publication, or whose funding agency requires grantees to archive the final version of their article. With OnlineOpen, the author, the author's funding agency, or the author's institution pays a fee to ensure that the article is made available to non-subscribers upon publication via Wiley Online Library, as well as deposited in the funding agency's preferred archive. Please visit http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-406241 for further information about OnlineOpen; Prior to acceptance there is no requirement to inform an Editorial Office that you intend to publish your paper OnlineOpen if you do not wish to. All OnlineOpen articles are treated in the same way as any other article. They go through the journal's standard peer-review process and will be accepted or rejected based on their own merit.
Online production tracking is available through Author Services
Author Services enables authors to track their article – once it has been accepted – through the production process to publication online. Authors can check the status of their articles online and choose to receive automated e-mails at key stages of production. The author will receive an e-mail with a unique link that enables them to register and have their article automatically added to the system. Please ensure that a complete e-mail address is provided when submitting the manuscript. Visit http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/ for more details on online production tracking and for a wealth of resources including FAQs and tips on article preparation, submission and more.
Free access to the final PDF offprint or your article will be available via author services only. Please therefore sign up for author services if you would like to access your article PDF offprint and enjoy the many other benefits the service offers. Paper offprints may be ordered as detailed in the email accompanying the proofs. Offprints are normally despatched within 3 weeks of publication of the issue in which the paper appears. Please note that offprints are sent by surface mail, so overseas orders may take up to 6 weeks to arrive.
The purpose of writing is to convey information and ideas from one mind to another. Good writing achieves this efficiently, whether the subject is sex or science, and even if, as is often the case in neuroendocrinology, the subject is both.
Clarity of thought distinguishes the best of scientists, and clarity of expression is particularly important in science, where fast and efficient communication underpins collective progress. Yet it is still an apparently widespread misconception that, for a scientific paper to be good, it must be dull, or obscure, or both. No referee or editor has ever advised me that a paper was unsuitable because it was too clear, too fluent, or too elegantly written. On the other hand, it is a common complaint that, while a paper might contain interesting data, it is impossible to be sure because the introduction fails to make the purpose of the study clear, because the presentation of data is so confusing, because the discussion is so tortuous, or because the account of the methodology is so incomplete.
No amount of polishing can help when a fundamental confusion of thought has infected experimental design, but this is rarely true of papers submitted to this Journal. At the same time, there are few papers whose impact upon their readers cannot be enhanced by judicious editing. The main responsibility for editing in this sense lies with the authors, and with their colleagues who provide constructive criticism and advice in the drafting of manuscripts.
Authors may wish to consider the following guidelines.
The Abstract of a paper in the Journal of Neuroendocrinology is the face of a paper turned to the world. It is not a précis of the paper, but is a clear, direct account of what was done, why it was done, and why the outcome matters. This is not the place for details and data, or for speculation. Avoid abbreviations, write sparingly, but simply and clearly as to a general audience, and give the highlights only.
The Introduction provides enough information to understand the nature of the problem or the hypothesis that is addressed. This is not the place for a review of the field, or an extended discussion of the literature. The readers will be neuroendocrinologists, so it may be assumed that they know for instance, what the pituitary is and does in general terms, but given this, the Introduction should be understandable to any neuroendocrinologist. The Introduction should end with a clear statement of the aims of the study. Few references may be needed; for background information, it is generally sufficient to cite recent reviews.
Materials and Methods
The Materials and Methods contains all the necessary information that would enable the experimental findings to be replicated independently. Such details as are likely to be critical must be mentioned, details that reasonable scientists would consider irrelevant should not be.
The Results section is the most important and enduring part of a scientific paper. Interpretation is open to us all, but what has been observed is not open to argument in the same way. The results section must be understandable in itself, and each subsection should explain briefly the exact nature and object of the particular experiment. The results must be described clearly, but as rigorously as possible. For example, if an autoradiographic study has measured binding density, then the results describe binding density - not receptors. It may be reasonable to infer that binding density reflects the expression of functional receptors, but this inference is for the discussion. Be specific, results are obtained from rats or lizards or snow geese, not animals; measurements are of plasma concentrations, tissue content, mRNA expression, not levels. ACTH does not go up, though the concentration of ACTH in plasma may. Write concisely, but do not sacrifice accuracy for brevity. Do not think that repetition of words or phrases is in itself dull. If a sequence of experiments is essentially replicates with subtle but important differences, then those elements that are common are best described in an identical manner, so that those aspects that are different stand out as different. To describe the same thing in different terms invites confusion in the mind of the reader.
The Results section is for describing what has been observed, not for speculating about its implications or for contrasting with previous findings. Some explanation may be needed to link the outcome of one experiment to the design of the next, but this should be kept to the minimum compatible with sense and fluency. The text should be understandable in itself, while the figures amplify and illustrate the content of the text. In particular, the text should not read like a succession of figure legends, requiring constant cross-reference between text and figures. Equally, each figure should be essentially self-contained, with a legend that is concise, yet sufficient to enable the reader to understand the importance of the figure. Data that are given in figures or tables need not be, and generally should not be, repeated in the text. Data should be cited to an appropriate accuracy - normally more than two significant figures is spurious.
The Discussion is where the authors interpret their results, and place them in the context of other published work. Authors should use the Discussion to highlight those outcomes of the study that are clear and which significantly advance our knowledge or understanding. These will normally relate to the aims of the study as described in the Introduction. Authors are traditionally allowed some freedom to speculate, but are not encouraged to discuss the implications of differences that are not significant, or to speculate on why differences were not significant. Nor are they encouraged to speculate on the outcome of experiments that were not performed, or to dwell on the degree to which predictable outcomes are consistent with myriad previous publications. Reference to unpublished data is discouraged; if data are essential to interpretation of a study then they should be published as part of that study. Personal communications should be cited sparingly, and only with the explicit consent of the person cited.
References should be used sparingly. They direct the reader to essential information in the peer-reviewed literature that may not be generally known, and place the work in the context of recent, closely-related work conducted by the authors and by others. Assertions that are uncontroversial statements of what has come to be generally accepted do not need referencing. Multiple references to a peripheral point of information are often unnecessary; it is generally sufficient to cite a single authoritative source. Avoid references to abstracts, conference proceedings and book chapters which may not be readily accessible if an alternative reference to a peer-reviewed publication is available, except in the cases of citation to classic original sources, such as that below.
Statistical procedure and experimental design are only two different aspects of the same whole, and that whole is the logical requirements of the complete process of adding to natural knowledge by experimentation. (Fisher RA. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1935).
Editors, referees, and readers generally, are impressed when an elegantly designed experiment produces a clear outcome, and when that outcome informs a clear and coherent train of reasoned argument leading to a new insight into an important problem. Statistical tests, used appropriately, can bolster the readers confidence that reported observations are likely to be repeatable, and so add to the credibility of a reasoned argument. Statistical tests are no substitute for common sense however.
Some very common errors of interpretation fall into the following classes:
Drug A had no significant effect upon X.........therefore Drug A does not affect X.
This conclusion is invalid. The failure to detect an effect may reflect the smallness of the sample size, the variability in the measurements, or the small size of a true effect. In the Discussion, authors may be permitted to infer that no significant effect means no effect; however statements in the results should be confined to a bare rigorous statement of the form no significant effect of Drug A on X was detected.
Some near mystical importance is often attributed to P-values of less than 0.05. A P-value of 0.05 means that the observed effect might simply reflect random variation, but the odds that this is so are only about 1 in 20. In a well-designed experiment, this will be convincing. But in many contexts, a P-value of 0.1 might also be pretty strong evidence, especially when other lines of evidence support the outcome of a particular experiment. It is appropriate in such circumstances to give the full details of the data and to state the exact significance value; an intelligent reader will give this evidence appropriate weight in the context of all of the findings. It would be inappropriate and indeed misleading to disregard a difference as not significant, and therefore negligible, when the odds of a difference being real may be 9 out of 10 or better.
Drug A had a significant effect upon X, while Drug B did not....... therefore Drug A and Drug B have different effects.
Drug A had a significant effect upon X but no significant effect on Y, ......therefore X and Y are different
Again these conclusions are invalid. Any comparison between Drug A and Drug B must be supported by a direct comparison of their effects, leading to a conclusion of the form The difference between the effectiveness of Drug A and Drug B was significant (P).
This type of error is one of the most common errors in the literature; all journals are infected, and it is easy to find examples where conclusions of this type are central to the import of a paper yet fly in the face of a common sense evaluation of the data. In the words of Fisher The statistician cannot excuse himself from the duty of getting his head clear on the principles of scientific inference, but equally no other thinking man can avoid a like obligation.
In a perfectly designed experiment, the exact statistical analysis that will be performed should be decided in advance of the experiment. Experiments sometimes do not go exactly as planned however, and designs change through knowledge gained along the way. Therefore, often scientists consider which tests to apply only once they have collected the data. It would be unnatural to imagine that they do not then redesign their experiments retrospectively, reporting only those which seem to be interpretable, and applying statistical tests in the manner which will most effectively add weight to the conclusion that they had already drawn from looking at the data. This is an abuse of statistics, but one so common and so difficult to detect objectively that it defies elimination. Expert referees and editors live with it by applying tests of common sense. They consider the design of the experiment, the power and limitations of the methodology, the number of replicates, the size of the observed effect, and they look for internal consistency between the whole of the data and the inferences drawn, and for external consistency with what has been reported by others. From their experience of analogous data, they then decide whether they are convinced that the conclusions are valid. If expert referees are not convinced by the data as reported and illustrated, then no amount of statistical authority will help. Again in the words of Fisher, If the design of an experiment is faulty, any method of interpretation which makes it out to be decisive must be faulty too.
To summarise, statistical tests are an important part of the process of drawing conclusions from data, but are only a part of that process. At best, they efficiently encapsulate a process of logical reasoning; when tests are used as a substitute for such reasoning they can mislead the unwary. One unicorn would be enough to convince me that unicorns exist; the highest imaginable correlation between the stork population and the human birth rate would not persuade me that they are causally linked.
We work together with Wiley’s open access journal, Clinical Case Reports, to enable rapid publication of good quality case reports that we are unable to accept for publication in our journal. Authors of case reports rejected by our journal will be offered the option of having their case report, along with any related peer reviews, automatically transferred for consideration by the Clinical Case Reports editorial team. Authors will not need to reformat or rewrite their manuscript at this stage, and publication decisions will be made a short time after the transfer takes place. Clinical Case Reports will consider case reports from every clinical discipline and may include clinical images or clinical videos. Clinical Case Reports is an open access journal, and article publication fees apply. For more information please go to www.clinicalcasesjournal.com.