Submissions
Review Process
Date of Receipt
Conflict of Interest
Initial Assessment
Time Frame
Referral to Physiological Reports
Correspondence
Confidentiality
Withdrawal of manuscripts
Appeals Procedure
Senior Editors
Reviewing Editors
Expert Referees
Conflict of Interest
Article Types
Scientific Quality
Language and Presentation
Experimental Ethics
Scientific Misconduct and Publication Ethics
Wording of Reports
Acceptance
Revision
Referral
Rejection
Following Acceptance
PDFs
Please read Wiley's review confidentiality policy before undertaking a review.
Experimental Physiology is owned by The Physiological Society which is contractually responsible to its publisher (Wiley) for editorial policy, maintenance of intellectual standards and the appointment of an Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief forms the Editorial Board. Experimental Physiology supports the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE's) guidelines for peer reviewers.
This is a Gold Open Access journal that requires authors of accepted manuscripts to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC). There are no charges for submission. All manuscripts for Experimental Physiology, from submission to acceptance, are processed online via the eJournalPress online manuscript processing system (https://ep.msubmit.net), administered by The Physiological Society's Publications Office (ephjournal@physoc.org). Editors, reviewers and authors communicate through the Publications Office.
Full instructions for authors are provided here and throughout the submission process.
Submissions must be accompanied by copies of any material, published by the authors in the last year that overlaps the content of the manuscript.
Please note: Experimental Physiology uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts.
Experimental Physiology cannot accept responsibility for loss of files submitted to them. Contributors are advised to keep copies of all text and figure files during the review process.
The date of receipt of each manuscript will be published on the accepted paper and is normally the date on which the manuscript is first received in the Publications Office. Manuscripts submitted without all the information specified in the Information for Authors will not be given editorial consideration until it has been provided; this applies especially to aspects of animal welfare/ethics. The date of receipt published will then refer to the date when the complete submission was received. If an author fails to deal with requested revisions within a reasonable time (usually one month) the date of original receipt will be replaced by the date on which the new version was resubmitted and received in the Publications Office.
Submitted manuscripts are assigned to a Senior Editor who may appoint another member of the Editorial Board to act as a Reviewing Editor. Senior Editors may themselves choose to review manuscripts, in which case the manuscript would usually be assigned to a new Senior Editor. It is the policy of Experimental Physiology that each manuscript is independently reviewed by two Expert Referees; in some cases a third Expert Referee may be consulted. See below for more information on Editorial Roles.
Any person who is known to have a conflict of interest with the authors of a particular manuscript will not be invited to review the manuscript. The specific conflicts of interest are listed here.
In order to provide a rapid decision to authors and avoid unnecessary waste of reviewer and author time, all manuscripts are assessed on submission by members of the Editorial Board and a decision made on whether they fall within the scope of Experimental Physiology and are suitable for external review. If a paper is clearly outside the journal's remit or the expertise of any member of the current Editorial Board, or does not warrant a full review because it is not sufficiently novel and important and will have little or no impact on the subject area, triage may be recommended by the Senior Editor in consultation with a second Editor, if necessary. If triage is recommended, the manuscript is returned to the authors as quickly as possible with a letter giving reasons for triage, but without a full report (see below criteria for Triage/Rejection).This rapid decision allows authors to submit elsewhere with a minimum of delay.
Manuscripts recommended for full review are independently reviewed by two Expert Referees, who are acknowledged experts in the field and are invited by the Senior or Reviewing Editor to report on the manuscript. In some cases a third Expert Referee may be consulted. If an Expert Referee fails to report on time, the Editorial Board will endeavour to make an editorial decision without further delay. Expert Referees who prove to be unreliable will not be invited to review for the journal again.
It is the aim of the Editorial Board that authors should receive an editorial report, including an initial decision, within 5 weeks of receipt of the complete manuscript in the Publications Office. Authors should note that when pairs of manuscripts are submitted the review process may take longer.
Experimental Physiology works together with the open access journal Physiological Reports to enable rapid publication of good-quality research that is unable to be accepted for publication by Experimental Physiology. Authors may be offered the option of having their manuscript, along with any related peer review reports, automatically transferred for consideration by the Editors of Physiological Reports. 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. The Editors of Physiological Reports will accept submissions that report well-conducted research which reaches the standard acceptable for publication. Physiological Reports is a joint publication of the American Physiological Society and The Physiological Society, published by Wiley. It is an open access journal and article publication fees apply. For more information please go to https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2051817X.
Guidelines for referring papers to Physiological Reports can be found here.
Following submission of a manuscript, all correspondence, up to the stage of acceptance, is dealt with by the Senior Editor, Editor-in-Chief and the Peer Review Co-ordinator handling the manuscript. All correspondence regarding manuscripts under review must be in writing. Under no circumstances should authors make direct contact, by email, in person or by phone, with people whom they suspect may be reviewing their manuscript, for example, those whose names are suggested on the submission form, as this will disrupt the review process by creating a conflict of interest.
Experimental Physiology operates a single-blind process. Submissions are treated as confidential and the identities of the Editor and/or Expert Referees are not revealed to the authors. The authors' identities are revealed to those assigned the manuscript. Whilst a manuscript is under review, it should be treated as strictly confidential. Expert Referees must not contact the authors directly. Correspondence is between the Senior Editor and the Corresponding author, via the Publications Office. Signed Referee reports will be anonymised by journal staff. The identity of the Senior Editor will only be revealed once a manuscript has been accepted.
Please read Wiley's review confidentiality policy.
If authors wish to withdraw their manuscript from consideration, a specific and valid reason must be provided. There is an understanding between authors and journals that manuscripts are submitted in good faith and that authors will make their best endeavours to complete, or to explain why they have not completed, requested revisions.
If authors cannot complete the required revisions they may contact the Publications Office to request withdrawal. In such cases, authors are required to provide a full explanation for the need to withdraw their manuscript. If only minor revisions are required, such as those that do not require additional laboratory resources, then the expectation is that authors will revise their manuscript for further consideration and will not seek withdrawal.
If authors are found to have demonstrated behaviours in violation of these accepted publication ethics standards, Experimental Physiology will:
Authors wishing to lodge an appeal regarding an editorial decision on their manuscript should do so within two weeks from the date of the decision letter. Beyond this, appeals will not be considered. The 'Letter of Appeal' should be addressed to the signatory of the decision letter, and submitted via the online submission system. Under no circumstances should authors make direct contact with anyone they think has been involved in the evaluation of their manuscript as this may invalidate the appeal. The appeal will be considered by the Senior Editor concerned, but may include others at the discretion of the Senior Editor. All appeals should be succinct, have a reasoned rebuttal, and be suitable for onward transmission. Once a decision on the appeal has been reached, the authors will be informed. All correspondence must happen in writing.
The major task of a Senior Editor is to ensure, by prompt and skilful reviewing, that Experimental Physiology attracts and publishes papers of high scientific quality that are of considerable importance in the field. With the help and advice of Reviewing Editors and/or Expert Referees, Senior Editors provide a report and recommendation for acceptance or rejection for all the manuscripts they receive. The Senior Editor is responsible for the final decision. Senior Editors normally return an initial decision to authors within five weeks of submission.
Senior Editors also check experimental and publication ethics on all submitted manuscripts (in consultation with a Statistics or Ethics Editor where appropriate), scrutinise revised manuscripts (in consultation with the Reviewing Editor and/or Expert Referees, if necessary), liaise with the Editor-in-Chief on complaints or appeals from authors, and actively promote their areas of research.
Reviewing Editors act as Expert Referees for submissions within their area of expertise. They may also be asked to suggest Expert Referees or provide support/advice to Senior Editors in their subject area.
The role of the Expert Referee is to give an opinion on the scientific merit of the paper and assist the Editorial Board by accurately answering the questions on the Expert Referee's review form. Expert Referees are invited to provide comments for the author, which should include specific opinions on the paper and suggestions for improvements, and comments for the Reviewing Editor and/or Senior Editor, including any opinions on suitability for publication. The Editor may additionally ask for specific advice on any aspect (such as terminology, methods, statistics) with which s/he is not entirely familiar. Expert Referees are asked to submit a report within 10 days. They should decline the invitation to review or inform the Publications Office if they cannot meet this deadline or have a conflict of interest. Experienced Expert Referees are encouraged to invite less experienced colleagues to contribute to an Expert Referee's report, however they should maintain overall responsibility for the final submitted report and for confidentiality and notify us if additional people have contributed to the review so that they can be acknowledged and their input recorded. Expert Referees are graded by the Editor each time they provide a report - see details of our grading criteria. Expert Referees should not identify themselves to authors in their reports either implicitly or explicitly. Signed reports will be modified by journal staff. All reports are subject to modification of language by Editors or staff.
We greatly appreciate the time and effort Expert Referees put into providing a review. If you require formal acknowledgement of your role as Expert Referee for Experimental Physiology, or if you are registered with Publons and want your review added to your Publons profile, we can send you a confirmation of your review(s) by email. Please contact the Publications Office.
Please see COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Further resources for Expert Referees are available here.
A list of current Editorial Board members can be found here
Any person invited to review a manuscript should declare any potential conflicts of interest before they accept the invitation.
Conflict of interest exists when an Editor’s or Expert Referees other interests interact with their editorial responsibilities in such a way that they cannot render a fair and unbiased assessment of a manuscript assigned to them. It is not unusual for a conflict of interest to arise. In fact, a conflict of interest need not necessarily disqualify an Editor or Expert Referee from handling a manuscript (see below). However it is necessary that any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest is disclosed. Transparency is essential.
Experimental Physiology recommends that Editors or Expert Referees should not handle research manuscripts which meet any of the following criteria:
If the Editor or Expert Referee feels that their involvement with the authors might represent an actual, perceived or possible conflict of interest, they must declare this to the Publications Office before agreeing to edit the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief (or other suitable person such as the Managing Editor) will make a judgement as to whether the possible conflict of interest will prevent the Editor or Expert Referee forming an objective and non-biased opinion on the manuscript, or could expose Experimental Physiology to claims of bias.
Experimental Physiology does not necessarily consider informal guidance given to authors prior to submission as a conflict of interest, although this is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Authors will be asked to disclose any advice or assistance given to them by an Editor in the Acknowledgments section of their manuscript.
Experimental Physiology does not consider it a conflict of interest if the Editor or Expert Referee has reviewed the manuscript for another journal, although we do request that this is declared prior to them handling the manuscript.
Please see COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Requirements vary according to article types. Expert Referees should read our guidelines for each article type here. Expert Referees are asked to consider the following points in their report:
Editors and Expert Referees are asked to comment on the scientific quality of the manuscript with respect to the following areas:
Editors and Expert Referees should be aware that papers in Experimental Physiology are read not only by specialists but also by those entering a new field of research, and by students. If the scientific message of the paper is obscured by poor English or inappropriate presentation, this should be noted in the report. Avoidable jargon and esoteric abbreviations should be discouraged and where inappropriate nomenclature has been used, the more usual form should be indicated. If extensive corrections to the manuscript's English are required to make it intelligible, this should be reported to the Publications Office either before or after editorial review. The Publications Office will advise the authors to seek help with their manuscript's English before revision either from a native English-speaking colleague or by sending it to a professional language/science editing service at the authors expense. Our publisher, Wiley, offers an English Language Editing Service (ELES) for our authors. Please follow the link for more information on the services offered.
Those reviewing manuscripts should familiarise themselves with journal policy on animal and human ethics. To ensure that papers published are of a high standard both scientifically and with respect to the ethics of experimentation, Experimental Physiology appoints an Ethics Editor who provides prompt advice on ethical questions raised by Editors or Expert Referees. If the Editor or Expert Referee has doubts about the ethical acceptability of experiments conducted on animals or humans, the Publications Office will ensure that the authors are asked to address the problem(s) before undertaking any scientific revision. The authors will be advised to proceed only when the Ethics Editor is satisfied that the issue has been resolved; usually this involves amplification of the Methods section so that the humanity of the experiments is no longer in doubt.
With the apparent increase in scientific misconduct, all those involved in publishing scientific research should be alert to possible irregularities in any paper received for review and check that the manuscript does not overlap material already published. Any suspicions of research or publication misconduct should be referred immediately, in strict confidence, to the Editor or Peer Review Co-ordinator who will pass it to The Society's Publisher, who may consult further with The Society’s Publication Ethics Committee.
For further information on journal ethical policies, click here.
Please note: Experimental Physiology uses the results of CrossCheck plagiarism detection software iThenticate to check submitted manuscripts for overlap with previously published material.
Material included under 'Comments for Authors' in the report forms should be anonymous, courteous and suitable for transmission to the author without modification. We reserve the right to amend/remove any wording from the review report which may be considered inflammatory. Separate comments made to the Editor may be paraphrased in the decision letter to the authors.
Where the Editor or Expert Referee recommends rejection, grounds for this opinion must be very clearly stated. It is particularly important that authors are not antagonised, or given grounds for appeal, by the use of insensitive language. Where Expert Referees differ dramatically on the question of rejection or acceptance, the Editor should obtain a further independent report since authors are likely to appeal if a manuscript is rejected on the basis of conflicting reports.
Editors and Expert Referees should give clear reasons for recommending acceptance. Ideally the reports should start with a statement of the key scientific aspects of the work that provide a significant enhancement of physiological understanding and are likely to have a high impact. Few papers will receive unqualified acceptance; most authors will be expected to make changes, sometimes involving new experiments. The changes required should be clearly spelt out in the report but the implication that these will automatically lead to acceptance should be avoided.
To be acceptable, papers must fall within the journal’s scope and be of high enough priority for publication. They must be technically sound, clearly written, and provide significant new data or a new physiological insight based at least in part on new data. Experimental Physiology reserves the right to rescind the accept decision on manuscripts at any stage if flaws are found prior to publication. Any changes required after publication will require a corrigendum, erratum or article update.
If a manuscript has the potential to go on to acceptance if certain points are addressed satisfactorily, the authors will be given a decision asking them to revise their paper. There is no guarantee of acceptance after revision. The Editor’s decision email to the author summarises what needs to be done (using extracts from the ‘Comments for Authors’).
The period given to authors for minor revision is usually four weeks but can be longer if the Editor considers it necessary. Where the changes needed are relatively minor, and the author deals with them adequately, the Editor may accept the revised version on receipt. If more extensive changes are involved, manuscripts go back to the Expert Referee(s) before the Editor makes a final decision.
Major Revision is reserved for papers that, with substantial revision, usually involving further experiments, have a high probability of becoming acceptable. The Editor’s decision together with the Expert Referees’ reports will indicate to the authors very clearly what additional experiments or amendments are required. It will be made very clear to authors that no undertaking can be given that a revised version will necessarily prove acceptable; the new material may fail to address the original criticisms satisfactorily or the clarifications requested may reveal problems, scientific or ethical, that were not obvious before. Short Communication articles cannot be invited for Major Revision.
A revision period of 120 days will usually be given for major revision decisions but extensions may be granted on request following agreement with the Editor. Major Revisions will be sent back to any of the original reviewers who raised concerns to ensure they have been fully addressed. If an extended period of time has elapsed, the original Expert Referees are not available, or for any other reason, the Editor may seek the opinion of new Expert Referees.
Experimental Physiology may refer papers of good quality which do not meet its threshold for acceptance to its sister journal Physiological Reports (www.physiologicalreports.org) in line with our referral guidelines. If the authors choose to pursue this option, their submission along with the peer review reports will be transferred to the receiving journal’s Editors in order to provide the authors with a rapid publication decision. A primary objective for this collaboration is to lessen the burden on the already over-stretched community of peer reviewers and to accelerate time to publication. If reviews are transferred, the full anonymity of the peer review process will be maintained such that Editors or Expert Referees’ identity will not be revealed to the authors of the manuscript and only revealed to the Editors with consent. If you any questions about this process, please contact the Publications Office.
The Editorial Board seeks to maintain or improve the reputation of Experimental Physiology. In order to achieve this it is necessary to reject papers that are not of the highest quality.
In order to provide rapid decision to authors and avoid unnecessary waste of reviewer and author time, all manuscripts are assessed on submission by members of the Editorial Board and a decision made on whether they fall within the scope of Experimental Physiology and is suitable for external review. Rejection without review may be recommended (triaged) if a paper is clearly not within the journal's scope or is not of high enough priority for publication. If, in the opinion of the Editor and/or the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript is considered insufficiently novel and important, and likely to have little or no impact on the subject area, then triage is recommended as quickly as possible to save time and effort on both sides. If triaged, the manuscript is returned to the authors with a covering letter giving reasons for triage, but without a full report.
Other reasons for rejection which would become apparent during review are:
Absolute grounds for rejection:
a) There are flaws in the design of experiments or in the analysis of data.
b) The conclusions are inadequately supported by the results.
c) There is evidence in the literature that invalidates key elements of the work.
a) The observations are too specialised and of little interest to physiologists.
b) The experiments are essentially derivative and the results unsurprising.
c) The key results are uninterpretable without further experiments.
d) The phenomena described are of no clear physiological relevance.
The paper is unsatisfactorily arranged or poorly written, for example:
a) The paper may be far too long for its substance.
b) The paper's data cannot be assessed because the figures are poor.
c) The paper is rendered incomprehensible by confused or confusing presentation.
Papers of the following kinds are usually unsuitable, but may be accepted if they are of exceptional merit:
Possible grounds for rejection:
Where an Editor considers that a recommendation for rejection is not adequately supported by the reports, or where there are other grounds for doubt, they may go back to the Expert Referee to ask for clarification or a more substantial report. Alternatively, they may seek further opinions from a second Editor or from additional Expert Referees. When conflicting recommendations are received, the Editor will decide the outcome, taking further advice as necessary.
Proofs should be corrected and returned promptly since publication is in order of receipt of corrected proofs. Excessive alterations by the authors of the accepted copy may be subject to further editorial consideration.
Corresponding authors will be sent a PDF file of their paper.