Submission and review process
Publication of peer review reports
Withdrawal of manuscripts
Editorial roles
Guidelines for editors and expert referees
Criteria for recommending rejection or acceptance
Guidelines for referring manuscripts to Experimental Physiology and Physiological Reports
Following acceptance
Navigating the system
Wiley Reviewer Centre
Please read Wiley's review confidentiality policy before undertaking a review.
The Journal of 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. Specific members of the Board are appointed to a Leadership Team which oversees the operation of The Journal. The Journal of Physiology supports the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE's) guidelines for peer reviewers.
In order to improve the transparency of its peer review process The Journal of Physiology publishes online as supporting information the peer review history of all articles accepted for publication. Readers will have access to decision letters, including all Editors’ comments and referee reports, for each version of the manuscript and any author responses to peer review comments. Referees can decide whether or not they wish to be named on the peer review history document.
All manuscripts for The Journal of Physiology, from submission to acceptance, are processed online via the eJournalPress online manuscript processing system (https://jp.msubmit.net) administered by The Physiological Society's Publications Office. Editors, Referees and authors communicate with the Peer Review Team (jp@physoc.org).
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: The Journal of Physiology uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts.Authors can suggest both a Senior and Reviewing Editor of The Journal of Physiology to edit their manuscript. They may also suggest suitable Referees. However, authors should not nominate Editors or Referees who are known to have any conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript. Authors may also identify to staff if there are any Expert Referees that they wish to be excluded from consideration in the review process. Authors' preferences will be taken into consideration but there is no guarantee that they will be acted upon. The final decision rests with The Journal.
The Journal 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 instructions 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 received by the Publications Office.
Submitted manuscripts are assigned to a Senior Editor who appoints a member of the Editorial Board to act as a Reviewing Editor. Senior Editors may themselves choose to review manuscripts, acting as a Reviewing Editor. In these cases a new Senior Editor is assigned. It is the policy of The Journal of Physiology that each manuscript is independently reviewed by two Expert Referees; in some cases a third 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.
If a manuscript is clearly outside The Journal's scope or does not warrant a full review because it is considered insufficiently novel and important and likely to have little or no impact on the subject area, triage may be recommended by the Senior Editor and/or the Reviewing Editor. 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 for more information about the criteria for recommending acceptance or rejection.
Manuscripts recommended for full review are independently reviewed by two Expert Referees, who are acknowledged experts in the field and are invited by the Reviewing Editor to report on the manuscript. If a Referee fails to report on time, the Reviewing Editor may make an editorial decision without further delay. 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 within 5 weeks of receipt of the complete manuscript. Authors should note that when pairs of manuscripts are submitted the review process may take longer. Manuscripts considered unsuitable for a full review, for whatever reason, will be triaged to allow authors to submit elsewhere with a minimum of delay.
The Journal of Physiology works together with our open access journals Experimental Physiology and Physiological Reports to enable rapid publication of good quality research that is not accepted for publication by The Journal of Physiology. Authors may be offered the option of having the manuscript, along with any related peer review comments, automatically transferred for consideration by the Editors of Experimental Physiology or Physiological Reports. Authors will not need to reformat or rewrite their manuscript at this stage.
Both Experimental Physiology and Physiological Reports are open access journals, and article publication fees will apply. Find out if your institution is covered by one of Wiley’s many Transformative Agreements here.
More information on Experimental Physiology can be found here, and further information for 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 and the Peer Review Co-ordinator handling the manuscript. All correspondence regarding manuscripts under review must happen 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 for the Editor or Expert referee.
The Journal of Physiology operates a single-blind review process. Submissions are treated as confidential and the identity of the Reviewing Editor and Expert Referees are not revealed to the authors during the peer review process. Editors and Expert Referees see the full list of authors on manuscripts they are invited to handle. Correspondence is between the Senior Editor and the Corresponding author, via the Publications Office. However, for accepted manuscripts the peer review history will be published online as supporting information. This includes all Editors’ comments and referee reports for each version of the manuscript and any author responses to peer review comments. Referees can decide whether or not they wish to be named on the peer review history document.
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 we will:
Appeals procedure
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, usually the Senior Editor, 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 and the Reviewing 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 Editorial Board of The Journal of Physiology appoints Senior Editors who are responsible for the quality of publications in a specific field of interest. They will be assigned a list of Reviewing Editors with expertise relevant to that field. The Senior Editors distribute manuscripts to appropriate Reviewing Editors, and decide on the basis of reports received and the recommendation of the Reviewing Editor whether or not a manuscript is acceptable for publication, and communicate the decision to the author. Senior Editors also check experimental and publication ethics on all submitted manuscripts (in consultation with an Ethics Editor where appropriate), scrutinise revised manuscripts (in consultation with the Reviewing Editor if necessary), liaise with the Editor-in-Chief on complaints or appeals from authors, and actively promote their areas of research.
The major task of Reviewing Editors is to ensure, by prompt and skilful reviewing, that The Journal publishes papers of high scientific quality that are of considerable importance in the field. With the help and advice of Expert Referees, Reviewing 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 on acceptance or rejection.
The role of the Expert Referee is to give an opinion on the scientific merit of the manuscript. Expert Referees are invited to provide comments for the author, which should include specific opinions on the manuscript and suggestions for its improvements, and confidential comments for the Editors, including any opinions on suitability for publication which may be unsuitable for direct communication to the author. The Editors 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. Expert Referees are graded by the Reviewing Editor each time they provide a report - see details of our grading criteria. As The Journal of Physiology publishes online as supporting information the peer review history of all articles accepted for publication, readers will have access to decision letters, including all Editors’ comments and referee reports, for each version of the manuscript and any author responses to peer review comments. Referees can decide whether or not they wish to be named on the peer review history document. Expert Referees can indicate their preference upon the submission of their report. 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, 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 or letter. Please contact the Peer Review Team.
Please see COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Further resources for Referees are available here.
A list of the current Editorial Board members can be found here.
Editors and Referees must adhere to COPE's guidelines for peer-reviewers.
Please see our Publication Ethics Guidelines for Editors.
Whilst a manuscript is under review, it should be treated as strictly confidential. It should not be given for comment to any other party without prior permission from The Journal, including junior colleagues whom they might wish to invite to help write the review, and it should not be passed on to Journal Club meetings.
Please do not contact the authors directly. Communication should be through the Peer Review Co-ordinator. All communication should happen in writing.
Please read Wiley's review confidentiality policy before undertaking a review.
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 Referee's 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.
The Journal of 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 Peer Review Team 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 The Journal of Physiology to claims of bias.
The Journal of 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.
Please see COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Editors and Expert Referees are asked to consider the following points in their report or when making their recommendation:
Editors and Expert Referees should be aware that papers in The Journal of 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 manuscript is obscured by poor English or inappropriate presentation, this should be noted in the report. Avoidable jargon and esoteric abbreviations and non-standard nomenclature should not be used by authors. If extensive corrections to the English are required to make the manuscript intelligible, this should be reported to the Peer Review Team either before or after editorial review. The Peer Review Team 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 author's 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, The Journal of 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 with 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: The Journal of Physiology uses the results of Crossref's 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 confidential comments made to the Editors may be paraphrased in the decision letter to the authors at the discretion of the Senior Editor and staff. The comments used in the decision letters will be published online as part of the peer review history document.
Where the Editor or Expert Referee wishes to recommend 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. See below for more information about the criteria for recommending acceptance or rejection.
Editors and 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 manuscripts will receive unqualified acceptance; most authors will be expected to make changes, sometimes involving new experiments. The changes required should be clearly spelled out in the report but the implication that these will automatically lead to acceptance should be avoided.
To be acceptable, manuscripts must be within The Journal's scope, technically sound, clearly written, and provide significant new data or a new physiological insight based at least in part on new data. The manuscript can occasionally be accepted as submitted, or with only minor corrections or suggested improvements. This may be the case if a manuscript which is resubmitted as a new manuscript following major revision.
More usually manuscripts are potentially acceptable subject to satisfactory revision. In this case the letter accompanying the reports emphasises what has to be done, and specifies time limits for submitting a revised version. Expert Referees who raised concerns on the initial version of a manuscript will usually be asked to review the revised version to ensure that their concerns have been properly addressed.
The Editorial Board seeks to maintain The Journal of Physiology's high ranking position by rejecting manuscripts that are not of the highest quality. Manuscripts that are considered by the Senior Editor to be clearly unsuitable for publication in The Journal may be sent to a Reviewing Editor (or another Senior Editor) for a second opinion. Reasons for such unsuitability include:
Rejection without a full report (triage) may be recommended if a manuscript is clearly not within The Journal's scope or does not warrant a full review. If, in the opinion of the Senior Editor and/or the Reviewing Editor, the manuscript is considered insufficiently novel and important and likely to have little or no impact on the subject area, then triage should be recommended as quickly as possible to save time and effort on both sides. If triage is agreed, the manuscript is returned to the authors with a letter giving reasons for triage, but without a full report.
The Journal of Physiology's Editors may refer good quality manuscripts 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 reviewer reports (if obtained) 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 identity will not be revealed to the authors of the manuscript and only revealed to the Editors with consent. If you have any questions about this process, please contact the Peer Review Team.
Manuscripts of the following kinds are usually unsuitable but may be accepted if they are of exceptional merit:
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' provided by Expert Referees and the Reviewing Editor’ recommendation).
The period given to authors for 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 Reviewing Editor and/or Expert Referee(s) before the Editor makes a final decision.
Authors may be invited to resubmit their manuscript even if major revision is required. This will usually involve further time-consuming experiments, but could have a chance of acceptance once they have been performed. 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 resubmitted 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. The Journal does not impose a deadline for resubmissions. The revised paper will be considered as a new submission. Resubmitted manuscripts 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, and the original Reviewing Editor and/or Expert Referees are not available or for any other reason, the Editor may seek the opinion of new Expert Referees.
Where a Senior Editor considers that a recommendation for rejection is not adequately supported by the reports, or where there are other grounds for doubt, s/he may go back to the Reviewing Editor and/or Expert Referee (s) to ask for clarification or a more substantial report. Alternatively, the Senior Editor may seek further opinions from a second Reviewing Editor. When conflicting recommendations are received, the Senior 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 paper may be subject to further editorial consideration.
Corresponding authors will be sent a PDF file of their published paper.