editorial Open AccessTop 1% cited

Experimental design and analysis and their reporting II: updated and simplified guidance for authors and peer reviewers

British Journal of Pharmacology · 2018 · Vol. 175(7) · pp. 987–993

Michael J. Curtis(King's College London)S P H Alexander(University of Nottingham)Giuseppe Cirino(University of Naples Federico II)James R. Docherty(Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland)Christopher H. George(Swansea University)Mark A. Giembycz(University of Calgary)Daniël Hoyer(University of Melbourne)Paul A. Insel(University of California, San Diego)Angelo A. Izzo(University of Naples Federico II)Yong Ji(Nanjing Medical University)David J. MacEwan(University of Liverpool)Christopher G. Sobey(La Trobe University)S. Clare Stanford(University College London)Mauro Martins Teixeira(Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais)Susan Wonnacott(University of Bath)Amrita Ahluwalia✉(Queen Mary University of London)

View via DOI Full-text PDF

Abstract

This article updates the guidance published in 2015 for authors submitting papers to British Journal of Pharmacology (Curtis et al., 2015) and is intended to provide the rubric for peer review. Thus, it is directed towards authors, reviewers and editors. Explanations for many of the requirements were outlined previously and are not restated here. The new guidelines are intended to replace those published previously. The guidelines have been simplified for ease of understanding by authors, to make it more straightforward for peer reviewers to check compliance and to facilitate the curation of the journal's efforts to improve standards.

Animal testing and alternatives Health and Medical Research Impacts Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsRubricComputer scienceData scienceInformation retrievalPsychologyMathematics education