Integrative Biology
Guidelines for Authors
2.0 Article types
2.1 Full Papers
All articles must address the following assessment criteria:
- Insight: What contribution does the paper make to our insight on the biological mechanism/process/phenomena explored?
- Innovation: To what extent does the technology used enable the biological insight?
- Integration: To what extent does the paper demonstrate integration of technology and biology?
An 'Insight Box' describing how the work described addresses these criteria (less than 120 words) must be provided on submission. Papers cannot be reviewed without this statement.
Although there is no page limit for Full Papers, appropriateness of length to content of new science will be taken into consideration.
2.2 Perspectives
These must also meet the Insight, Innovation and Integration criteria described above but may be articles providing a personal view of part of one discipline associated with Integrative Biology (its present state, where it may be leading, etc.) or a philosophical look at a topic of relevance. Alternatively, Perspectives may be historical articles covering a particular subject area or the development of particular case studies, legislation, technologies, methodologies or other subjects within the scope of Integrative Biology.
2.3 Critical and Tutorial Reviews
These must be a critical evaluation of the existing state of knowledge on a particular aspect of the scope; the papers discussed should not only be critically assessed but also in terms of the Insight, Innovation and Integration they introduce. In addition, we are looking for reviews that challenge the views of other authors in the area in question and offer an alternative or more challenging view that can help stimulate further studies and research. Simple literature surveys will not be accepted for publication. Potential review writers should contact the Editor before embarking on their work, wherever possible.
2.4 Frontier Reviews
These are smaller, more focused versions of the Critical and Tutorial reviews described above and hence should address all the same criteria in a well-defined, specific topic area covering approximately the last 24-36 months.
- Given topics should review work no more than 24-36 months old.
- Reviews should cover only the most interesting/significant developments in that specific subject area.
- The review should be highly critical and selective in referencing published work.
- One or two paragraphs of speculation about possible future developments may also be appropriate in the conclusion section.
- Frontier Reviews should be brief, four journal pages are recommended (ca. ten double spaced, typed, A4 pages) and should contain no more than two or three tables and a minimal number of figures.
