期刊名称：JOURNAL OF NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
 期刊简介(About the journal)
投稿须知(Instructions to Authors)
编辑部信息(Editorial Board)
About the journal
|
The Official Journal of the European Neuroendocrine Association and the British Society of Neuroendocrinology
The Journal of Neuroendocrinology is an international journal intended to act as a focus for the newest ideas, knowledge and technology in the neurosciences which are contributing to the rapid growth of neuroendocrinology. The aim of the Journal is to provide a medium which is responsive, through the strength of its Editorial Board, to the rapidly changing face of contemporary neuroendocrinology and which is able to expand and grow as rapidly as the subject. Original manuscripts dealing with both vertebrate and invertebrate systems will be published.
Referee Report Form
Please complete the following form and submit it to the Editor by clicking on the "Send Form" button at the end. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/static/jneur_rrf.asp
Copyright forms can be found by clicking here (PDF) or here (Word). |
|
Instructions to Authors
Information for Contributors
The Journal of Neuroendocrinology publishes high quality research that makes a significant contribution to the understanding of neuroendocrine mechanisms.
Manuscripts
Four copies of manuscripts should be submitted to The Editor of the Journal of Neuroendocrinology
Professor Gareth Leng
Department of Biomedical Sciences
University Medical School
Hugh Robson Building, George Square
Edinburgh EH8 9XD
UK
Tel: +44 (0) 131 650 6811
Fax: +44 (0) 131 651 1287
e-mail: J.Neuroend@ed.ac.uk
or to any of the co-ordinating Editors, where their expertise is appropriate. Contemporary reviews may be submitted directly to the Reviews Editor, and Young Investigator Perspectives to the Perspectives Editor. If possible, submit the abstract by e-mail to the Editors in advance of sending the manuscript by mail in order to expedite selection of referees.
Manuscripts should be typewritten in English, double-spaced and on one side of the paper only. 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 may suggest the names of up to three referees, but the Editor 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: (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; (ix) Figure legends; (x) Tables. Authors should consult a current issue of the Journal to check that the layout and style of the manuscript conform to the Journals, and they should read the style guidelines below. A completed copyright assignment form must be included with the submitted manuscript.
Rapid Communications
Rapid Communications are short (1000 word) articles of exceptional interest or topical relevance. A rapid editorial decision can be expected. These papers should have the same title page as for full papers followed by a short summary for non-specialist readers, followed by a text, which integrates Introduction, Results and Discussion. Materials and Methods should be reported concisely in figure or table legends.
Contemporary Review Articles
Contemporary Review Articles are normally submitted following a direct invitation from the Editor-in-Chief or the Reviews Editor, 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 either to the Editor-in-Chief or to the Reviews Editor. All Review Articles, whether invited or not, are subject to rigorous peer review.
Young Investigator Perspectives
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.
Abbreviations
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.
Referencing
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:
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.
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.
Text Figures and Tables
Text figures and tables should be numbered in the order in which they are referred to in the text. Tables should be in typescript on separate sheets. It is helpful if photographs are provided at final size for publication, and line drawings are not more than twice final size. The column width is 84 mm, and a full page illustration will be up to 175 x 236 mm. All signs and letters must be clearly produced using printed, paste-on or transfer labels, using font styles consistent with the general appearance of the Journal. The final size of letters and numbers must be at least 2 mm. The original of each illustration should be sent, with three copies of adequate quality for judgement by referees.
Animal Experiments
The Editors will not allow any papers to be published that describe experiments on living animals which may reasonably be presumed to have inflicted unnecessary pain or discomfort upon them. Experiments on living vertebrates or Octopus vulgaris should conform in principle to the legal requirements in the UK. Whenever appropriate, a statement should be included indicating that experiments were performed in accordance with local/national guidelines.
Off prints
Authors will receive 25 offprints free of charge.
Disks
After final approval for publication, authors will be asked to submit the accepted version on disk. These should be Apple Mac or IBM-compatible. The final version of the hard copy and the file on disk must be the same. For full guidance on preparation of the final copy, see www.blackwell-science.com/elecmed/authors.htm.
Colour reproduction
Colour processing and printing can be arranged at the request of the author(s) who will be expected to contribute towards the cost. As an approximate guide, authors will be expected to contribute about ?00 towards the cost of one page of colour reproduction, whether only one or several figures appear on that page. If more pages of colour reproduction are needed the Editor should be consulted on likely costs.
Style Notes
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.
Abstract
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.
Introduction
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.
Results
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.
Discussion
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
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.
Statistics
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.
or
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.
Gareth Leng
Editor
Edinburgh, UK
Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief
Gareth Leng
Department of Biomedical Sciences
University Medical School
Hugh Robson Building
George Square
Edinburgh
EH8 9XD
Scotland
UK
Tel: +44 (0) 131 650 6811
Fax: +44 (0) 131 651 1287
e-mail: J.Neuroend@ed.ac.uk
Deputy Editor
John Russell
Department of Biomedical Sciences
University Medical School
Hugh Robson Building
George Square
Edinburgh
EH8 9XD
Scotland
UK
Reviews Editor
Susan Wray
Cellular and Developmental Neurosciences
NINDS NIH
Building 36 Room 5A-25
Bethesda
MD 20892-4156
USA
Young Investigator Perspectives
R. John Bicknell
Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology
The Babraham Institute
Cambridge
CB2 4AT
UK
Tel: +44 (0)1223 496 527
Fax: +44 (0)1223 496 022
e-mail: johnbicknell@bbsrc.ac.uk
Co-ordinating Editors
Iain J. Clarke
Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research
PO Box 5152
Clayton
Victoria 3168
Australia
Tel: +61 (3) 9550 4387
Fax: + 61 (3) 9550 6125
e-mail: Iain.Clarke@med.monash.edu.au
Jacques Epelbaum
INSERM - Unite 159
2 ter Rue d'Alesia
75014 Paris
France
Tel: +33 (1) 40 78 92 81
Fax: +33 (1) 45 80 72 93
e-mail: Epelbaum@broca.inserm.fr
Quentin J. Pittman
Neuroscience Research Group
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
University of Calgary
Faculty of Medicine
Health Sciences Centre
3330 Hospital Drive NW
Calgary
Alberta
Canada
T2N 4N1
Tel: + 1 (403) 220 7383
Fax: + 1 (403) 283 2700
e-mail: pittman@ucalgary.ca
John C. Wingfield
Russel F. Stark University Professor and Professor of Zoology
Department of Zoology
Box 351800
University of Washington
Seattle
Washington 98195
USA
Tel: + 1 (206) 543 7622
Fax: + 1 (206) 543 3041
e-mail: jwingfie@u.washington.edu
| 
