Word limit: The word limit for Review Articles is 4,000-6,000 words (not including figures, tables or references).
Every article must contain:
Title: All article types should have a concise, informative title that contains no brand names.
Authors’ names and affiliation: Including address, academic qualifications and job titles of all authors, as well as telephone number and email address of the author for correspondence on a separate cover sheet as the peer reviewers will be blinded to the authors’ identity. Please note that only the address of the first author of the article will appear on Medline/PubMed, not necessarily the corresponding author.
Structured abstract (maximum 200 words): The aim of the abstract is to draw in the interested reader and provide an accurate reflection of the content of the paper. We therefore request the following structure is followed for full-length review articles:
- Introduction: Authors are required to describe the significance of the topic under discussion.
- Areas covered: Authors are required to describe the research discussed and the literature search undertaken.
- Expert opinion: Authors are required to summarise briefly their Expert opinion section.
References must not be included in the abstract.
Keywords: A brief list of keywords, in alphabetical order, is required to assist indexers in cross-referencing. The keywords will encompass the therapeutic area, mechanism(s) of action, key compounds and so on.
Body of the article:
- Introduction: Incorporating basic background information on the area under review.
- Body: Body of the review paper covering the subject under review, using numbered subsections.
- Conclusion: The conclusion for all articles should contain a brief summary of the data presented in the article. Please note that this section is meant to be distinct from, and appear before the ‘Expert opinion’ section.
Expert opinion: 500-1000 words (included in overall word count).
To distinguish the articles published in the Expert opinion series, authors must provide an additional section entitled ‘Expert opinion’. This section affords authors the opportunity to provide their interpretation of the data presented in the article and discuss the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results. The intention is to go beyond a conclusion and should not simply summarise the paper. Authors should answer the following:
- What are the key findings and weaknesses in the research done in this field so far?
- What potential does this research hold? What is the ultimate goal in this field?
- What research or knowledge is needed to achieve this goal and what is the biggest challenge in this goal being achieved?
- Where do you see the field going in the coming years? What is going to happen?
- Is there any particular area of the research you are finding of interest at present?
Please note that ‘opinions’ are encouraged in the Expert opinion section, and, as such, referees are asked to keep this in mind when peer reviewing the manuscript.
Article highlights box: Please provide, in the form of a bulleted list (five or six points), statements covering the key aspects of the paper.
References: A maximum of 100 references is suggested. Ensure that all key work relevant to the topic under discussion is cited in the text and listed in the bibliography. Reference to unpublished data should be kept to a minimum and authors must obtain a signed letter of permission from cited persons to use unpublished results or personal communications in the manuscript.
Annotated bibliography: Important references should be highlighted with a one/two star system and brief annotations should be given (see the journal’s Instructions for Authors page for examples and for a more detailed description of our referencing style).
Figures and tables: Up to five figures and five tables are permitted. For further information on tables and figures, please see our formatting guide.