Instructions for authors submitting to the Expert Collection
Word limit: The word limit for Patent Evaluations is 1,500 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 addresses: Including address, academic qualifications and job titles of all authors, as well as telephone number, fax number and email address of the author for correspondence on a separate cover sheet, so that 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.
A structured abstract of no more than 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.
Introduction: Incorporating basic background information on the area under review.
The scientific and/or commercial rationale behind the patent, giving some perspective on the information disclosed, placing it in context with previous research in the same area, and indicating the relative importance of the present application. It is essential that a critical stand is taken when writing.
Body of the text:
- Chemistry: Briefly comment on any novel or particularly adroit chemical syntheses; draw a scheme if necessary to illustrate your point. Name, and draw, the most interesting compound(s). You may prefer to use a generic structure to illustrate the range of compounds covered. Indicate how the compounds disclosed differ from other inventions patented by the same or competitor companies, i.e., in terms of novel chemistry or superior biological activity.
- Biology and action: Comment on the extent and quality of the experimental models used, indicating their relevance to the therapeutic claims. Quote in vitro and in vivo data, the species used, route of administration, and so on, as appropriate.
Expert opinion should be between 200 and 500 words. This section should compare and contrast the patented approaches/drugs reviewed in the article with the range of alternative patented approaches/drugs. To conclude, give your opinion on the likelihood of the compounds described to become lead candidates for development, or if any of the techniques disclosed will be of potential therapeutic use. If not, indicate why you think the patent is nevertheless of interest. Comparative assessment is encouraged. When evaluating the patent, the author should place emphasis on the therapeutic significance of the novel invention.
The evaluation should place the invention into the context of the ‘state-of-the-art’ in the relevant field, by comparing and contrasting the invention with those of other companies working in the same field, or with earlier inventions from the same company. The chemistry and biology covered in the patent should be examined. evaluations must, above all, contain critical analyses of the invention, i.e., they should not just summarise the patent text. Comparative evaluations should highlight similarities and differences and identify the most interesting patents in the group.
This section affords authors the opportunity to go beyond the conclusion and provide their interpretation of the data presented in the article. In addition, there is the opportunity to 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.
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.
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: The bibliography should contain no more than 100 references. Important references should be highlighted with a one/two star system and brief annotations should be given (see the journal’s information for authors for examples and for a more detailed description of our referencing style).