Guidelines for Authors on the construction of articles

Bioscience Hypotheses is a forum for new ideas in the life sciences. We will publish interesting and important theoretical papers that foster the exchange of new ideas upon which the scientific process thrives, provided they are coherently and clearly expressed.

Bioscience Hypotheses is not, however, a journal for publishing reviews of the literature, nor is it a journal for primary data (except when preliminary data is used to lend support to the main hypothesis presented).

These notes are designed to help authors formulate an article for Bioscience Hypotheses. These are guidelines only and the Editor is happy to accept other formats provided that the principal requirements are met.

Philosophy
Bioscience Hypotheses will publish new, challenging and radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Papers are selected by editorial review rather than peer review. The editor's role is as a 'chooser' of the best ideas to publish, not a 'changer'.The Editor often uses external referees to inform his opinion on a paper, but their role is as an information source, and the Editor's choice is final. Bioscience Hypotheses can therefore form a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations. This also means that we encourage authors to take responsibility for their ideas. We do not state that papers are 'true', only that they are interesting.

However authors should be aware that a paper is not an idea: it is an expression of an idea. On occasions the Editor will discuss with authors aspects of the paper that the Editor feels are unconvincing, not clearly expressed, are likely to meet with specific opposing arguments from the readers, or are contradicted by other information available in the literature. The purpose of this is to explain why a paper is not suitable in its present form for publication. This is a critical part of the approach of the Journal, as new ideas are often hard to accept, and arguments need to be well made for them to convince.

Progress in the life sciences is often as much due to innovations in technology as to new understanding of biological processes. Bioscience Hypotheses is therefore also open to papers that describe new ways to understand or exploit biological systems, providing that they meet our criteria of novelty, clarity and importance.

A hypothesis
Roughly speaking, a hypothesis should be an organized logical structure (or model) that accounts for (some) known facts, and which has real world consequences that are (in principle) observable. A new hypotheses should account for the known facts better than the previous ones, and should not be any worse at fitting in with other facts. The consequences of a hypothesis constitute predictions that may be tested against observations and experiments to determine whether some of them are (apparently) fulfilled. Most articles for Bioscience Hypotheses should fulfil the requirements of a hypothesis, and the logic of the proposals should be clearly stated and evaluated. Specifically, we expect all papers to

• provide new insight into the understanding or application of biology that could be of interest to a wide life science readership
• be clear, coherent, and lay out an argument that is easy to follow
• be compatible with known fact (although it may contest the interpretation of those facts), or, if you think the 'facts' are wrong, explains why you think that.
• provide an interpretation, hypothesis or solution that is testable.

Papers that do not provide at least the outline of how the authors might test their conclusions,or differentiate their conclusion from other explanations, will be rejected. Hypotheses about approaches or methods should show why it can reasonably be expected that the new approach will be better than any previous approach.

Bioscience Hypotheses is a general journal and articles need to be intelligible to a wide audience in bioscience, including those who may not be specialists in the field. Clarity of presentation and concision are key requirements.

Papers that provide some preliminary data (itself perhaps not sufficiently robust to be published as an independent paper, but nevertheless rigorously collected) will be welcomed, but preliminary data is not a requirement for publication, and Bioscience Hypotheses is not a forum the publication of new experimental results unless they are supporting a broader theoretical structure.

The journal explicitly does not publish papers addressing wholly medical issues. Our sister journal Medical Hypotheses is the appropriate forum for these. We do publish papers about fundamental aspects of the life science that may have medical implications

Abstract
The abstract is the most important section of the paper since it will be widely and freely disseminated by scientific indexing systems, and will be read more often than the whole paper. Therefore the abstract should present the paper in microcosm. It should contain explicit details of the hypothesis being advanced, the main lines of supporting evidence and the most important implications. Abstracts generally do not need discussion of the background to the problem. Abstracts should avoid generalised comments such as 'Cancer remains a major unsolved medical problem' or 'The detailed evolution of the human brain is still not completely understood'.

Introduction
The introduction should to be a concise introduction to the scientific area to be addressed, supported by appropriate references and should set the scene for the hypothesis. The introduction should not be an attempt to review the evidence in detail, unless review of specific pieces of evidence is central and critical to why a new hypothesis is needed.

The hypothesis
The hypothesis needs to be set out in explicit detail. Typically it should be clear why and how the hypothesis is different from current thinking, and why it is important.

The scientific logic of the hypothesis should be clearly evident (eg. the assumptions made, the steps in its logical argument).

Evaluation of the hypothesis/idea
The proposed hypothesis should be evaluated in the light of known and published information. Generally, this entails an evaluation of both evidence in support and evidence (apparently) against the hypothesis. Only relevant, and critically evaluated, papers should be cited.

A hypothesis should, if correct, have implications and make predictions. These predictions are (in principle) amenable to further observation and experimentation that could tend to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Typically, authors would be expected to indicate how their hypothesis might be tested. Authors do not have to go into the detail of experimental protocols, unless those details are critical aspects of proving the hypothesis.

Empirical data
Bioscience Hypotheses is not a forum for publishing new data. At the Editor's discretion, some data (for example, data from small pilot studies or one-off experiments) may be included when it is required for support of the proposed hypothesis, and when it is unlikely to be published in its own right. However, even in these cases the focus of the paper should be the hypothesis, not the data.

Consequences of the hypothesis and discussion The importance of the hypothesis may need to be stated explicitly, with a discussion of the potential implications for the area of science under discussion if the hypothesis were to be confirmed. Bioscience Hypotheses has a wide readership, and so hypotheses which only have implications for the practice of science in a very narrow specialism are less likely to be accepted.

References As a general rule, references should to be limited to those that have a direct bearing on the understanding of the hypothesis.

Figures and Tables
Diagrams, figures or tables may be invaluable in explaining the hypothesis. Tables may be a good way of presenting evidence for and against a hypothesis in a way which makes the strengths and weaknesses of the argument quickly apparent to the reader. Explanatory diagrams and figures are welcome - so long as they clarify the argument.

Submission Authors are requested to submit their manuscript and figures online via http://ees.elsevier.com/bihy. This is the Elsevier web-based submission and review system. You will find full instructions located at this site - this Guide for Authors and a Guide for Online Submission. Please follow these guidelines to prepare and upload your article. Once the uploading is done, our system automatically generates an electronic pdf proof, which is then used for reviewing. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revisions, will be managed via this system.

Paper submissions are not normally accepted. If you cannot submit electronically, please email the editorial office for assistance on bihy@elsevier.com

The Editor cannot accept responsibility for damage to or loss of manuscripts. A paper is accepted for publication on the understanding that it has not been submitted simultaneously to another journal in the English language.

The Editor reserves the right to make editorial and literary corrections. Any opinions expressed or policies advocated do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Editor.

Classes of papers
Bioscience Hypotheses publishes three classes of paper:

Invited editorials: These are at the Editor's discretion.

Full papers: These are papers fully describing a new hypothesis, with a description of background science, exposition of the hypothesis, evaluation of the data and suggestions for testing. Papers can be up to 40 pages of manuscript (including references, figures and tables), although concision is encouraged.

Short communications: These are papers describing a specific idea, concept or hypothesis which does not need a full paper to describe, or which is not fully worked up into a complete hypothesis. These are short ideas which can be expressed in no more than two published pages. The abstract should be no more than 100 words. The body of the text should extend to at most 800 words plus five references. Figures would not normally be expected, but if a figure is included the number of words should be reduced by 150 for a quarter-page figure or 300 for a half-page figure.

Bioscience Hypotheses also publishes Correspondence, which are short responses or comments on papers previously published in the Journal. Usually these will fit into one published page.

Document Layout
Papers should be set out as follows, with each section beginning on a separate sheet: title page, summary, text, acknowledgements, references, tables, captions to illustrations.

Title The title page should give the following information: (1) title of article; (2) initials and name of each author, with highest academic degree(s); (3) name and address of the department or institution to which the work should be attributed; (4) name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the author responsible for correspondence and to whom requests for offprints should be sent; and (5) sources of support in the form of grants.

Abstract
The abstract is very important, as it is available and searchable by anyone in the world. Great care should be taken to provide an informative abstract which summarizes the main argument of the paper. The maximum length allowed is 400 words. The abstract should not contain any references, because it will sometimes be disseminated in isolation from the rest of the paper.

Within the Text
Papers should be subdivided as the author desires, bearing in mind that the use of headings usually enhances the reader's comprehension. Major headings should be in capital letters at the centre of the page, minor headings in lower case letters (with an initial capital letter) at the left hand margin.

Maximum Length
Papers should normally be restricted in length to a maximum of 40 pages of double spaced 12 point type including tables, illustrations and references.

Reference Format
The accuracy of references is the responsibility of the author. References should be entered consecutively by Arabic numerals in parentheses in the text. The references should be listed in numerical order on a separate sheet in double or triple spacing. References to journals should include the authors' names and initials (list all authors when six or fewer; when seven or more, list only the first three and add 'et al.'), full title of paper, abbreviated journal title, using Index Medicus abbreviations, year of publication, volume number, first and last page numbers. Internet references should include author, title, web address, date of publication (if known), and the date on which the website was accessed.

Figures
All line illustrations should present a crisp black image on an even white background. The illustrations should be 127 x 173 mm (5 x 7 in) in size, or no larger than 203 x 254 mm (8 x 10 in).

Photographic illustrations and radiographs should be submitted as clear, lightly contrasted black-and-white prints, sizes as above. Photomicrographs should have the magnification and details of staining techniques shown. X-ray films should be submitted as photographic prints, carefully made to bring out the detail to be illustrated, with an overlay indicating the area of importance.

Figures should be submitted appropriately lettered in capitals. The size of the letters should be appropriate to that of the illustration, taking into account the necessary size reduction.

All illustrations should be clearly marked with figure number and author's name. Illustrations in colour cannot be accepted unless the cost of origination and publication is paid by the author. Captions should be typed, double-spaced, on separate sheets of the manuscript.

Where illustrations must include recognizable individuals, living or dead and of whatever age, great care must be taken to ensure that consent for publication has been given. If identifiable features are not essential to the illustration, please indicate where the illustration can be cropped. In cases where consent has not been obtained and recognizable features may appear, it will be necessary to retouch the illustration to mask the eyes or otherwise render the individual 'officially unrecognizable'.

Tables
These should be double-spaced on separate sheets and contain only horizontal rules. Do not submit tables as photographs. A short descriptive title should appear above each table and any footnotes, suitably identified, below. Care must be taken to ensure that all units are included. Ensure that each table is cited in the text.

Units and Abbreviations
Avoid abbreviations in the title and abstract. All unusual abbreviations should be fully explained at their first occurrence in the text. All measurements should be expressed in SI units. Imperial units are acceptable from USA contributors. For more detailed recommendations, authors may consult the Royal Society of Medicine publication entitled Units, Symbols and Abbreviations: A Guide for Biological and Medical Editors and Authors.

Correspondence
Bioscience Hypotheses welcomes correspondence about previous articles in the Journal, providing brief summaries of extension of previous work, drawing attention to new evidence relating to theories previously published in the Journal, or making general comments concerning the journal or its field of interest. Letters should be 400 words maximum length, inclusive of any references.

Copyright Information
In order for us to ensure maximum dissemination and copyright protection of material published in the journal, copyright must be explicitly transferred from author to publisher.

The copyright transfer agreement will be sent to the corresponding author after the paper is accepted and it must be signed before any paper can be published.

Permissions Information
Written permission to reproduce borrowed material (illustrations and tables) must be obtained from the original publishers and submitted with the typescript. Borrowed material should be acknowledged in the captions in this style: 'Reproduced by the kind permission of ... (publishers) from ... (reference)'.

Conflicts of Interest/Role of the Funding Source
At the end of the text, under a subheading "Conflict of interest statement" all authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.

All sources of funding should be declared as an acknowledgement at the end of the text. Authors should declare the role of sponsors, if any, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. If the sponsors had no such involvement, the authors should so state.

Proofs
Careful proof reading of the manuscript to ensure the published paper is correct and accurate is the sole responsibility of the author. Authors may be charged for any alterations to the proofs beyond those needed to correct typesetting errors. Proofs must then be returned by email, fax or post to the Issue Manager at Elsevier within 48 hours of receipt.

Offprints
The corresponding author, at no cost, will be provided with a PDF file of the article via e-mail. The PDF file is a watermarked version of the published article and includes a cover sheet with the journal cover image and a disclaimer outlining the terms and conditions of use.

Procedure for Publication
Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the editor who will accept or reject the manuscript based on its adherence to the criteria described above and in the Journal's Aims & Scope. While awaiting print publication in the journal, a pre-print web version of accepted articles is made available to subscribers on ScienceDirect as an 'article-in-press'. Articles-in-Press have a digital object identifier (DOI) and are fully citable.