Original Research
Structured manuscript with objective, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Author Submission Standards
Instructions for Authors
Instructions for Authors
Journal of Peptides
Prepare manuscripts with reproducible methods, clear structure, and policy-compliant reporting for efficient peer review outcomes.
45%APC Savings
GlobalResearch Community
24/7Open Access
Scope Fit
Instructions Before Submission
Confirm scope and structure before upload to improve triage speed and reviewer assignment quality.
Journal of Peptides publishes research on peptide chemistry, bioactive peptide biology, therapeutic development, delivery science, and translational implementation.
Authors should state the scientific contribution clearly and explain practical implications for discovery, development, or clinical translation.
High-quality submissions connect findings to decision points in design, characterization, safety, efficacy, or deployment pathways.
Interdisciplinary manuscripts should clarify the contribution of each domain to strengthen interpretability and reproducibility.
If the study introduces novel methods, include validation logic and benchmark context sufficient for independent assessment.
Submissions outside journal scope may be redirected or declined at triage to maintain editorial focus.
Article Types
Select the Correct Manuscript Format
Format selection should match evidence maturity and methodological depth.
Methodology or Protocol Paper
Detailed reproducible workflows with validation and boundary conditions.
Systematic Review / Meta-analysis
Transparent search strategy, inclusion logic, and synthesis methods.
Translational Study
Evidence connecting discovery-stage findings to preclinical or clinical utility.
Short Communication
Focused findings with concise methodology and bounded claims.
Perspective and Commentary
Evidence-informed interpretation of emerging peptide research priorities.
When choosing article type, prioritize methodological clarity over compression; complex datasets require full reporting detail.
If unsure about fit, contact the editorial office before submission for rapid guidance.
Manuscript Structure
Core Reporting Requirements
Consistent structure helps reviewers evaluate validity, reproducibility, and translational relevance efficiently.
- Title should be precise and reflect principal outcome or innovation claim.
- Abstract should be structured with objective, methods, key results, and conclusion.
- Introduction should define evidence gap and rationale without overstatement.
- Methods should provide reproducible detail for synthesis, assays, and analysis.
- Results should distinguish primary from secondary findings and report uncertainty clearly.
- Discussion should interpret findings with limitations and practical implications.
- Conclusion should remain proportional to study design strength and evidence scope.
Figures and tables must align with manuscript claims and include complete legends and unit definitions.
Where exploratory analyses are included, distinguish them clearly from prespecified outcomes.
Ethics and Integrity
Mandatory Policy Disclosures
Integrity and compliance information is required for editorial evaluation and final acceptance.
Ethics Approval
Human and animal studies must report oversight approvals and protocol identifiers.
Consent and Privacy
Consent process and privacy controls must be documented where applicable.
Conflict Disclosure
All authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests.
Funding Transparency
Funding sources and sponsor roles in design and analysis must be explicit.
Data and Code Statement
Availability details should include location, access conditions, and limitations.
Image and Data Integrity
Reported results must reflect original data without misleading manipulation.
Integrity reminder: undisclosed overlap, manipulated visuals, or inconsistent data reporting may trigger formal review.
Files and Formatting
Submission Package Checklist
Complete files improve editorial throughput and reduce revision cycles.
- Main manuscript file with consistent section structure and terminology.
- Title page with full author details and corresponding author contact.
- Figures and tables prepared at publication quality with clear legends.
- Cover letter summarizing novelty, scope fit, and policy compliance.
- Supplementary files for protocols, extended methods, or additional analyses.
- Language quality review completed before submission to improve readability.
Reference formatting should be complete and accurate to support downstream citation linking.
Maintain consistent naming for peptide sequences, constructs, and activity endpoints across all files.
Review Process
What Happens After Submission
Understanding review stages helps teams prepare efficient and high-quality revision responses.
Editorial Triage
Scope, integrity, and reporting readiness are checked before external review routing.
Reviewer Assignment
Experts are selected based on domain relevance and methods expertise.
Decision Communication
Editors provide focused rationale and prioritized revision requirements.
Revision Submission
Authors should map reviewer points to exact manuscript updates.
Final Evaluation
Editors assess whether scientific and policy concerns are fully resolved.
Production Workflow
Accepted papers proceed to copyediting, metadata, and publication scheduling.
Revision responses should remain evidence-focused and professional, especially where interpretation differences exist.
Clear response matrices help reviewers and editors verify updates quickly and fairly.
Submission Planning
Execution Notes for Higher Acceptance Readiness
Use these practical notes to improve clarity, policy alignment, and review efficiency before final upload.
Editorial planning insight: Before upload, confirm consistency between abstract claims, figures, and conclusion statements. This approach helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript faster without sacrificing rigor.
Author workflow guidance: Complex methods sections should include reproducible detail on synthesis, characterization, and analysis workflows. Teams that apply this step early usually reduce revision friction and protect publication timelines.
Quality acceleration note: Response letters are strongest when reviewer points are mapped to exact manuscript edits. The same practice also improves metadata quality and downstream indexing discoverability.
Submission strategy point: Avoid causal overreach when experimental design supports associative rather than causal inference. It supports stronger decision transparency and more efficient peer-review communications.
Publication readiness reminder: Define prespecified versus exploratory analyses clearly in statistics and results sections. This improves consistency between core manuscript sections and supporting files.
Operational recommendation: Structured cover letters improve editorial triage and reviewer assignment accuracy. It also strengthens confidence for institutional, translational, and evidence-synthesis readers.
Reviewer-facing clarity note: Terminology consistency across sections is essential in peptide sequence and activity reporting. This approach helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript faster without sacrificing rigor.
Production planning guidance: For instructions for author planning, tighten conclusion language so claims remain proportional to data strength; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Editorial planning insight: For instructions for author planning, align title, abstract, and keyword language with the primary evidence claim; verify that tables, figures, and narrative statements remain consistent. This protects release schedules by reducing production-stage rework.
Author workflow guidance: For instructions for author planning, map each major result to a clear methods description and reproducibility note; verify that tables, figures, and narrative statements remain consistent. This protects release schedules by reducing production-stage rework.
Quality acceleration note: For instructions for author planning, separate prespecified analyses from exploratory findings in a traceable way; capture versioning notes where datasets or scripts may change over time. This increases trust for translational and evidence-synthesis readers.
Submission strategy point: For instructions for author planning, synchronize figure legends, unit definitions, and supplementary references; capture versioning notes where datasets or scripts may change over time. This increases trust for translational and evidence-synthesis readers.
Publication readiness reminder: For instructions for author planning, validate disclosure, funding, and ethics text before final upload; keep terminology stable across all manuscript files. This typically improves triage confidence and reviewer assignment precision.
Operational recommendation: For instructions for author planning, document reviewer-response changes against exact manuscript locations; keep terminology stable across all manuscript files. This typically improves triage confidence and reviewer assignment precision.
Reviewer-facing clarity note: For instructions for author planning, confirm metadata fields and author identifiers before production lock; define operational thresholds used in interpretation decisions. This reduces avoidable clarification loops during revision cycles.
Production planning guidance: For instructions for author planning, tighten conclusion language so claims remain proportional to data strength; define operational thresholds used in interpretation decisions. This reduces avoidable clarification loops during revision cycles.
Editorial planning insight: For instructions for author planning, align title, abstract, and keyword language with the primary evidence claim; state practical limitations and boundary conditions explicitly. This supports cleaner editorial decisions and faster acceptance readiness.
Author workflow guidance: For instructions for author planning, map each major result to a clear methods description and reproducibility note; state practical limitations and boundary conditions explicitly. This supports cleaner editorial decisions and faster acceptance readiness.
Quality acceleration note: For instructions for author planning, separate prespecified analyses from exploratory findings in a traceable way; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Submission strategy point: For instructions for author planning, synchronize figure legends, unit definitions, and supplementary references; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Publication readiness reminder: For instructions for author planning, validate disclosure, funding, and ethics text before final upload; verify that tables, figures, and narrative statements remain consistent. This protects release schedules by reducing production-stage rework.
Submit Your JOP Manuscript
Use either submission route with complete files and policy-ready disclosures for faster processing.
Editorial office: [email protected]
