Author information center

Submit your work

 

Why submit your manuscript to the JCI?

[Top of page]

  • Broad readership and scope.
  • Open access.
    • Beginning with the January 4, 2022, issue, all content is freely available to the public. The JCI deposits published research articles in PubMed Central, which satisfies the NIH Public Access Policy and other similar funding agency requirements.
  • Plan S compliance.
    • Meets cOAlition S requirements for authors who receive funding support from Plan S signatories; fully compliant with HHMI, Wellcome, and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) open access policies.
  • Editorial Board.
    • Includes academic editors with a broad range of expertise who are active researchers in their fields.
  • Longevity.
  • Impact Factor. 13.3 (2023).
    • One of the top journals in the category “Medicine, Research & Experimental.”
 

The JCI considers research submissions in the following categories

[Top of page]

Click the category name for formatting instructions; or go to How to submit your manuscript for the first time (new windows).

  • Research manuscripts provide substantial new mechanistic insights into biology and disease using preclinical models as well as materials and data derived from humans. These manuscripts are complete descriptions of studies of scientific importance and broad interest to the JCI readership.
  • Clinical Research and Public Health manuscripts report findings derived from human participants, ranging from studies with a small number of patients to large-cohort population-based studies. Manuscripts should inform our understanding of disease pathogenesis, therapeutics, diagnosis, or prevention. Reports of interest include clinical trials, observational analyses, epidemiological studies, health disparities research, outcomes research, and implementation research.
  • Research Letter manuscripts are focused reports of an original preclinical or clinical research finding of exceptional interest to the JCI readership. They are limited to 1,200 words — including the title page, main text, references, and figure legend or table — and 1 display item (figure or table).
  • Letter to the Editor manuscripts comment on a recent JCI research article and must be of substantial impact and interest to the general readership. They are limited to 850 words — including title page, main text, references, figure legend or table — and 1 display item (figure or table). Submission must occur within 1 month of the date of the issue in which the original article was published; the authors of the JCI article are provided the opportunity to respond. Note: For comments not fulfilling the requirements of this category or made beyond the 1-month time limit, authors should use the "Submit comments" option on the article page (see example here).

The Journal does not consider unsolicited manuscripts in non-research categories such as Review, Viewpoint, or Commentary. For more information, contact editors@the-jci.org.

 

Contacting the JCI

[Top of page]

Questions regarding manuscript handling and status should be addressed to staff@the-jci.org. To avoid the possibility of misinterpretation and/or errors in communication, the Journal will typically communicate only with the corresponding author. For any communication with us, reference the assigned tracking number as noted in the Journal’s acknowledgment of your submission. If you do not have this information, provide the manuscript title and corresponding author’s name.

Questions concerning editorial policies or decisions should be addressed to the Science Editors at editors@the-jci.org. Other members of the Editorial Board do not take calls or written inquiries from authors concerning decisions or other editorial matters. In general, responses are sent after evaluation of the written material and subsequent discussion by the Editorial Board.

Authors may submit inquiries to the JCI regarding manuscripts of potential suitability. Inquiries should include the manuscript abstract and a statement detailing the reasons why the manuscript might be of interest to the Journal’s readership. Decisions on such inquiries are not a substitute for peer review but are intended to provide informal guidance to authors in determining where to submit their research for full peer review.

 

Editorial policies and practices

[Top of page]

 

Submissions

The corresponding author is responsible for warranting that: the data in a manuscript are original and scientifically accurate; the manuscript is not defamatory, does not invade any right of privacy, and does not infringe on any proprietary right or copyright; all authors have approved the submitted manuscript’s content and authorship order and have agreed to participate in the peer review process; the manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere while under review by the Journal. Any potential conflict of interest (view policy) by any author listed on a submission must be stated on the title page. While multiple corresponding authors may be designated within a manuscript, a single corresponding author must be identified during the submission process as the Journal’s point of contact for all communications, including decision letters and proof notifications.

 

Dual-Journal Submission

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

Dual-Journal Submission gives you the option to submit your work for consideration by both the JCI and JCI Insight. Dual-Journal Submission increases your opportunity to find the right home for your work within the JCI Family of Journals and streamlines the peer-review process.

Papers sent for review by the JCI

Papers submitted to the Dual-Journal Submission track are evaluated first by the JCI editors. If the JCI sends the manuscript for review, reviewers will be asked to comment on the suitability and specify required revisions for both the JCI and JCI Insight.

If the JCI editors determine after peer review that your work is suitable for further consideration by the JCI, you will receive a decision with comments from reviewers and requirements for revision. In this case, JCI Insight will not receive your submission.

If the JCI editors determine after peer review that your work is not suitable for the JCI, your manuscript will automatically be routed to the JCI Insight editors for evaluation with the existing reviews. The JCI Insight editors will use the provided reviewer comments to quickly prepare a decision for JCI Insight.

Papers not sent for review by the JCI

Should the JCI editors decline to send your work for external review, the manuscript will automatically be assigned to a JCI Insight editor for an independent assessment.

If the JCI Insight editor sends the manuscript for peer review, reviewers will be asked to comment specifically on the suitability and specify revisions required for publication in JCI Insight. Decision letters will include comments from both the JCI and JCI Insight editors.

For further information, visit the Dual-Journal Submission page.

 

Prior publication

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

The JCI does not consider research manuscripts that have been posted to a community preprint server to be prior publications.

 

Review of manuscripts

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

The Science Editors assign manuscripts to appropriate Associate Editors. Papers may be rejected without external review if the Associate Editor, together with a Science Editor or the Editor in Chief, determines that the study does not significantly advance the field or the subject material is inappropriate for the JCI’s readership. When papers are sent for external review, the choice of reviewers is made by the Associate Editor and may include reviewers suggested by the authors during the submission process. Requests by authors to exclude specific potential reviewers will be honored to the greatest extent possible if a compelling reason is provided. At least two, and generally three, expert referees are asked to review the manuscript in a timely manner and to assign a priority based on content, originality, quality, relevance, and interest. Authors are informed of the final decision by email, with applicable comments from reviewers and Editors included.

Note: Manuscripts from Northwestern University are handled not by the Editorial Board at large, but instead in a separate process; in these circumstances, a Science Editor is the only Editor privy to the manuscript and, if the manuscript is sent for review, works with an outside consultant to formulate a decision.

Transfer of manuscripts from preprint servers. You may transfer a manuscript from the preprint server bioRxiv or medRxiv for submission to the Journal. For more information, see The submission process.

Transfer of reviews from other journals. When submitting a new manuscript, authors may opt to provide reviews received from another journal along with a point-by-point response. The Editors will consider this information along with the manuscript in determining priority for the JCI. Note that if the Editors decide to send the manuscript for review, it will be assessed by additional reviewers who will also have access to the prior reviews. The Editors may request additional studies based on the JCI’s assessment of the manuscript or reject it without an opportunity to resubmit. For submission details, visit How to submit your manuscript for the first time. The option for transfer of reviews from another journal can be found in the Related section during the submission process. You will be prompted to upload the external review history for the manuscript as a single PDF that contains the following:

  • Full, unedited prior decision letter and reviews
  • A point-by-point response to the reviews (either previously prepared responses or proposed responses)
  • Any subsequent correspondence with the other journal

ASCI members. Any dues-paying ASCI member who is a corresponding author of a first-round submission, and whose dues are current, may designate a first-round JCI submission to be guaranteed for external peer review (limit of 1 per calendar year). A member wishing to designate a submission for guaranteed review must start the submission using the “JCI family of journals” portal through the member’s ASCI account. Manuscripts submitted using the guaranteed review must fit within the scope of the Journal and will be held to the same standard for publication as other manuscripts considered by the Editorial Board. Note that the guaranteed external review option may not be used for manuscripts, in the same form or after revision, that have previously been rejected by the Journal. If an option is used for a new submission that is identified as a revision of a previous manuscript, the option will be removed from the submission and become available for use on a new submission.

Reviewer rewards. Frequent reviewers are provided the opportunity to submit a new manuscript, as corresponding author, with a guarantee of external review. The Reviewer Reward is granted in January to reviewers who have completed on-time reviews for at least 3 separate manuscripts within the preceding 18 months. Submissions using the reward must fit within the scope of the journal and will be held to the same standard for publication as other manuscripts considered by the Editorial Board. 

Please note:

  • Qualifying reviewers may only use 1 guaranteed review per calendar year.
  • Reviews of revised manuscripts are not counted toward earning a reviewer reward.
  • ASCI members whose dues are current receive a separate benefit for guaranteed external review (see above) and may not earn Reviewer Rewards in addition.
  • Note that the reviewer reward option may not be used for manuscripts, in the same form or after revision, that have previously been rejected by the Journal. If an option is used for a new submission that is identified as a revision of a previous manuscript, the option will be removed from the submission and become available for use on a new submission.

Contact us at editors@the-jci.org with any questions.

 

Confidentiality

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

The peer review process rests on the assumption that an assigned reviewer will treat all manuscripts as privileged information. A reviewer may request advice from another party, subject to the general principle of confidentiality and notification of the JCI.

 

Revisions, rejections, and rebuttals

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

Manuscripts may be accepted with no changes, provisionally accepted pending minor revisions, or rejected. For a rejected manuscript, if the reviewers and the Board believe that the paper, if appropriately revised, will merit a high enough priority to be published in the JCI, the authors are invited to submit a revision. All revised manuscripts are carefully reexamined. While acceptance cannot be guaranteed, the Board will make every effort to ensure that revised manuscripts are accepted presuming that the authors are able to address all reviewer criticisms and that no new studies published in the interim have compromised the paper’s novelty. If the authors of a rejected manuscript believe that a serious scientific error occurred during the review process, they may send a rebuttal explaining why the Board should reconsider the decision (see Contacting the JCI). While few rebuttals are successful in reversing the original decision, they are taken seriously, and their handling can take several weeks; we receive a large number of manuscripts each week to which we must give first priority.

If authors of rejected manuscripts are subsequently able to make new advances that go far beyond the original submission, they may consider submitting a substantially revised manuscript for de novo review. The authors should refer to the prior version in their cover letter, particularly to indicate how the present version differs. The Editors will make a determination as to whether the work is substantially advanced beyond the original submission. Note that de novo submissions are considered as new papers and may be sent to the same or independent referees.

Note: JCI Insight Editors may screen any manuscript the JCI decides to reject and may invite authors to transfer manuscripts to JCI Insight for consideration.

 

Legal status of manuscripts

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

By submitting a manuscript to the JCI, the authors agree to subject it to the confidential peer review process outlined above. However, all manuscripts remain the property of the submitting author(s).

 

Sex as a biological variable

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

For any studies involving humans and/or animal models, the Methods section must begin with a paragraph titled “Sex as a biological variable” that details the study design as follows:

  • which sex(es) were involved
    • if only one sex was involved,
      • a scientific rationale is provided
      • whether the findings are expected to be relevant for more than one sex is explained
  • If sex was not considered as a biological variable, this should be stated in the paragraph.
  • Examples
    Our study examined male and female animals, and similar findings are reported for both sexes.
    Our study examined male and female animals, and sex-dimorphic effects are reported.
    Our study exclusively examined female mice because the disease modeled is only relevant in females.
    Our study examined male mice because male animals exhibited less variability in phenotype.
    Our study exclusively examined male mice. It is unknown whether the findings are relevant for female mice.
 

Data availability

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

The Methods section must include a paragraph titled “Data availability” detailing how underlying data and supporting analytic code can be accessed by providing, as applicable:

  • a callout to the Supporting Data Values file, which includes values underlying graphed data and reported means presented in both the main text and supplemental material
  • for large data sets (see below): name of the public repository, with accession information or URL for the data set
  • for computer code deposited in Github: commit URL and ID
  • relevant information about data available directly from the corresponding author

In the case of manuscripts accepted for publication, data must be available/accessible by the time of publication. If there are restrictions on accessibility or availability (e.g., for human-subject or third-party data), authors must state why data are not public and whether they can be made available from the corresponding author or other party upon request. Authors should share deidentified or anonymized human subject data when permitted.

Large data sets. Large data sets for gene expression microarrays, SNP arrays, and high-throughput sequencing studies must be deposited in a public repository; microarray data in a MIAME-compliant public database; and high-throughput sequencing data in a MINSEQE-compliant public database. Deposition of other types of large data sets in a public repository is strongly encouraged. As described above, accession numbers must be provided in the Data availability section.

 

Sharing of reagents and other materials

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

As of the date of publication, authors will be required to make materials and methods used in the study available to researchers for their own use. This requirement includes antibodies, cell lines, and any newly created mutant animals or other materials necessary to replicate or advance the findings. Authors may make animals available through their institution or a publicly available repository. Authors must not impede the implementation of material transfer agreements to qualified recipients who have the necessary regulatory approvals to receive the reagents. Failure to adhere to these guidelines will be considered a violation of the authorship agreement and could result in retraction of the published article.

Researchers who encounter a persistent refusal by an author of a paper to comply with data availability or reagent sharing guidelines should contact the Editors’ office by email at editors@the-jci.org.

 

Scientific integrity

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

In general, the JCI adheres to guidelines established by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity. For further information, refer to the Office’s website at http://ori.hhs.gov/.

Duplicate publication and scientific fraud are rare events that have a very serious impact on the integrity of the scientific community. If the Board discovers or is presented with evidence of such problems, the Board will contact the appropriate official(s) at the institution(s) from which the manuscript originated. It is then left to the institution(s) in question to pursue the matter appropriately. Depending upon the circumstances, the journal may choose to publish errata, corrigenda, or expressions of concern, or to retract the manuscript in its entirety. If we detect any manipulation of images or figures prior to publication, we will automatically request all primary data for all figures for verification purposes.

When a member of the scientific community disagrees strongly with the methodology and/or conclusions of an article the JCI has published, but does not allege fraud, the JCI encourages the concerned individual to contact the authors of the article directly or to allow the natural corrective mechanisms of science to settle the issue with time.

 

Guidelines for generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

Use of generative AI technology to generate or modify data images is strictly prohibited. Peer reviewers are not permitted to use AI technologies to write reviews. Generative AI technologies may not be listed as authors on submitted manuscripts.

Generative AI technologies used for written or visual content must be explicitly described within the Methods section of the submission. This description must specify what content is AI generated, as well as the AI platform, version used, and date of use. The Editors encourage authors to provide full details regarding the prompts provided, either in Methods or Supplemental Methods. Authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy of AI-generated content.

 

Experimental design

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

Randomization

If samples have been randomly assigned to experimental groups or processing order, a statement specifying the randomization procedure should be included in Methods.

Blinded research

If investigators have been blinded to the sample group allocation during the experiment or analysis of the experimental outcome, a statement describing the level of blinding should be included in Methods.

Number of replicates (experimental unit)

Authors should provide sufficient details about the sample collection to distinguish between independent biological replicates and technical replicates. Biological replicates represent samples from different sources, while technical replicates represent an assay of the sample tested multiple times. The exact number of samples (n) for each figure panel representing multiple experiments must be included in the figure or its legend. For representative experiments, authors should state the number of times the experiment was performed.

Methods/experimental procedures

The Methods section should include a description of the experimental procedures that is adequate to allow researchers in the field to reproduce the work. Authors may include additional methods in the supplemental materials as needed.

Statistics

Authors should fully describe all statistical tests used during the analysis in the methods, and the statistical test used must also be reported in the relevant figure legend. We encourage authors to describe methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical test utilized (e.g., normal distribution). Authors should specify whether statistical tests are 1- or 2-sided. When making multiple comparisons on a single data set, authors should choose statistical tests that account for multiple groups (such as ANOVA rather than a series of t tests). The statistical analysis should also correct for repeated measures when comparing multiple measurements within subjects. A statement describing inclusion/exclusion criteria must be included in Methods if any samples were excluded from the analysis. Error bars must be defined, either in Methods or in the legends themselves; e.g., “Data represent mean ± SEM.” Variance around the mean and statistical analysis should not be presented if fewer than 3 independent samples are included.

Graphs and images

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

  • Graphs of quantitative data must be presented in a manner that clearly shows the distribution of data and variation. In general, graphs should be presented as dot plots, with the average and the appropriate error bars indicated; or as box-and-whisker plots, with values defined in the legend (the bounds of the boxes, the lines within the boxes, the whiskers, and any outlying values). Presentation of data as columns with error bars (dynamite plunger plots) is not permitted. The Editors acknowledge that exceptions to these guidelines exist, and these will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. Groupings of images from different parts of the same gel or from different gels or fields or exposures must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (e.g., using dividing lines) and in the text of the figure legend. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Nonlinear adjustments (e.g., changes to gamma settings, curves, or input levels) must be disclosed in the figure legend. The Editors reserve the right to consult the Office of Research Integrity or the appointed official at the authors’ home institution if the figures appear to have been manipulated.
  • Images and data sets should generally only be presented once in a manuscript. Any instances in which images or data sets, including control data, are presented in multiple figure panels in the manuscript or supplement must be explicitly described in the figure legend. Any images or data that have been previously published elsewhere must also be clearly described.
  • Authors of new submissions that contain cropped blot/gel images are encouraged, but not required, to submit a file that contains the unedited images for all cropped blots and gels in their entirety. Each of these images should be annotated as “Full unedited blot/gel for Figure [X],”, with lanes corresponding to those in the cropped images clearly indicated. This file should be uploaded separately from the primary submission PDF and distinct from any other supplemental material. For revised submissions, this file is required. The full unedited blot/gel data will be published if the manuscript is ultimately accepted for publication.
  • Authors of new submissions that contain data presented in graphs or data presented as mean ± standard deviation are required to submit a Supporting Data Values file containing all of the underlying values for data presented in the manuscript. All values must be compiled into a single Excel (XLS) file, with a separate tab for each applicable figure panel. The figure panels, samples, and types of data provided must be clearly labeled. This file should be separate from the primary submission PDF and distinct from any other supplemental data. The Supporting Data Values file will be published if the manuscript is ultimately accepted for publication. For more details, see How to prepare a Supporting Data Values file for submission.
  • Images in revised manuscripts may be evaluated for duplication by use of automated software (Proofig).

Human participants

All clinical investigation must have been conducted according to Declaration of Helsinki principles. All human studies must have been approved by the appropriate institutional review board(s), and a specific declaration of such approval must be made in a stand-alone paragraph at the end of the Methods section, including a statement indicating that written informed consent was received from participants prior to inclusion in the study. Participants should be identified by number, not by name. Manuscripts without declaration of ethical approval for experiments will not be reviewed. For photographs of patients, authors must provide a separate statement, in the Study Approval section of Methods, specifically indicating that written informed consent was received for the use of the photographs and that the record of informed consent has been retained. In general, images of faces should not be shown unless essential to the clinical message.

Demographic reporting

For studies involving demographic reporting, authors should follow the guidelines below to the fullest extent possible:

  • Identification adheres to NIH guidelines or other applicable authoritative standards for reporting race and ethnicity; as well as more-specific identities as appropriate. (See also the revisions to the NIH guidelines announced in 2024.)
  • Data for any demographic variable studied are inclusive.
  • Descriptors for any demographic identities are clear, unbiased, and up-to-date.
  • The reason for omission of collected demographic information is provided.
  • If possible, an explanation of whether the investigator or participants provided the information — and whether the options were defined by the investigator or the participants — is provided.

Animals

Authors are encouraged to follow the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines for reporting on animal studies. For animal models, the precise genotype, strain, source, number of backcrosses, sex, and age of animals studied must be provided in the manuscript. All animal studies must have been approved by the appropriate institutional review board(s), and a specific declaration of such approval must be made in a stand-alone Study Approval paragraph at the end of the Methods section.

Cell lines

Authors should describe the source of all cell lines utilized. Authors are also encouraged to include information regarding authentication of cell lines and testing for mycoplasma contamination.

Antibodies

A description of all antibodies used should be included in Methods, providing the source and catalog/clone number for commercial antibodies or a description (or reference to a description) of the generation of custom antibodies.

Original nucleotide or amino acid sequences

Authors should submit original nucleotide or amino acid sequence data to GenBank, the European Molecular Biology Library–European Bioinformatics Information (EMBL-EBI) database, DNA Databank of Japan (DDBJ), or another appropriate publicly available database in general use in the field that gives free access to researchers from the date of publication.

Chemical compounds

For any new chemical compound described, the chemical structure must be reported. Authors should also provide adequate data to support assignment of identity and purity of the compounds. For most compounds, chemical identity should be established through spectroscopic analysis. Authors should include adequate experimental and characterization data in Methods or Supplemental Methods. Methods describing the synthesis of new compounds must also be included.

T cell assays

For authors reporting T cell assays and NK cell assays, we recommend including Minimal Information About T Cell Assays (MIATA) in Methods, figure legends, or elsewhere as appropriate.

Software

Authors describing new software that they have developed are encouraged to report the source code for software in the Supplemental Methods or include a statement explaining how the software can be obtained.

 

Conflicts of interest

[Top of page] | [Editorial policies and practices]

The Journal of Clinical Investigation and American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI) are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct in research, and in its evaluation and related communication. It is important that the Editors, authors, and referees conduct themselves in accordance with stringent standards and transparent policies for addressing potential conflicts of interest. Herein, we delineate what constitutes a potential conflict of interest for the JCI as it relates to Editors, authors, and referees. Those found in violation of these policies may be subject to sanctions as determined by the JCI Editors.

Editorial conflicts of interest

[Top of page] | [Conflicts of interest]

The Journal Editors (Editor in Chief, Deputy Editors, Associate Editors, Executive Editor, and Science Editors) are responsible for maintaining the highest possible standards in evaluating contributions to the Journal as well as for maintaining its integrity. In the interest of establishing full transparency, Editors are obliged to disclose any and all potential conflicts of interest to the Journal. We have determined two tiers of potential conflict and corresponding actions to be taken. The Editors will report changes to their potential conflicts as they occur. An annual formal review of all disclosures will be performed in the evaluation of compliance.

First tier of potential conflicts for Editors

  1. Ownership. If an Editor currently has direct ownership of equity in a private or public company in the health care field of $10,000 or more (including restricted stock; the market price of all options, vested or unvested; and warrants), a first-tier potential conflict must be declared. Interests held by the Editor’s immediate family members (spouse and/or children) are included. This does not apply to ownership of mutual funds, where the Editor does not directly control the purchase and sale of stocks.
  2. Income. If an Editor has received $10,000 or more per annum of income from any single private or public company in the health care field in the preceding calendar year, a first-tier potential conflict must be declared. This includes any and all sources of financial benefit, including, but not limited to, consultancy, speaking fees, royalties, licensing fees, retainers, salary (including deferred compensation), honoraria, service on advisory boards, and providing testimony as an expert witness. Income generated by the Editor’s immediate family members (spouse and/or children) is included.
  3. Research support. If an Editor’s research was funded by $50,000 or more per annum from a private or public company in the health care field in the preceding fiscal year, including funding for personnel working within the laboratory, a first-tier potential conflict must be declared.

If an Editor declares a first-tier potential conflict relating to item 1, 2, or 3, this information will be published on the Journal website, and the Editor will be recused from Editorial discussion and decisions related to the manuscript. An Editor will be considered to be in conflict if a manuscript is funded solely by an organization with which the Editor has a potential conflict, regardless of whether a research institution employs the authors.

Second tier of potential conflicts for Editors

  1. Relationship with a company. If an Editor had a relationship with a private or public company in the health care field wherein the Editor received compensation for services, but the total amount of income was between $1,000 and $9,999 for the preceding calendar year, a second-tier potential conflict must be disclosed. This includes, but is not limited to, any compensation as detailed above in item 2.
  2. Relatives. If an Editor has a close relative other than a spouse or child (sibling and/or parent) employed by or with a significant financial interest in a private or public company in the health care field, a second-tier potential conflict must be declared.
  3. Prospective employment. If an Editor is negotiating with, has arranged prospective employment with, or is expected to initiate a significant financial relationship as defined in item 1, 2, or 3 with a private or public company in the health care field, a second-tier potential conflict must be declared.
  4. Personal. Editors will be required to declare a second-tier potential conflict if a manuscript is submitted by someone with whom they have a close personal relationship (former student, fellow, or mentor, for example) or a recent collaborator (over the last 3 years). Relevant collaborations include coauthoring a research article or serving as co-investigators on a grant.
  5. Competition. Editors will be required to declare a second-tier potential conflict if a submitted manuscript presents data that are highly relevant to a manuscript they have under review or in press elsewhere. Editors are prohibited from using unpublished information from the manuscripts under consideration by the Journal to further their own research, nor may they use new information gained from unpublished manuscripts for financial gain.
  6. Personal benefit. Editors must recuse themselves from discussion of a manuscript if they could benefit personally from its disposition. For example, if a manuscript is submitted describing the off-label use of a compound produced by a company for which an Editor has a potential conflict, the Editor must be recused.
  7. Intellectual property. Editors must recuse themselves from discussion of a manuscript if they have a planned, pending, or awarded patent that could be positively or negatively impacted by the publication of a manuscript under consideration.

The second tier of potential conflicts will necessitate only internal disclosure to the Editorial Board and Journal staff. The Editor in potential conflict will also be recused from editorial discussion and decisions related to the manuscript.

The Science Editors or other editorial staff member designated by the Editor in Chief will be responsible for recording and updating all potential conflicts. The Editor in Chief will review any Journal editorial staff potential conflicts.

Other potential issues that may arise will be evaluated by the Editor in Chief on a case-by-case basis.

Journal Editors are discouraged from serving as Editors for other primary research journals for which they would make final decisions on manuscripts. All such editorial duties must be approved by the Editor in Chief.

In order to avoid even the appearance of potential favoritism to institutional colleagues, manuscripts from Northwestern University are handled not by the Editorial Board at large, but instead in a separate process. In these circumstances, a Science Editor will be the only Editor privy to the manuscript and, if the manuscript is sent for review, will work with an outside consultant to formulate a decision.

Author conflicts of interest

[Top of page] | [Conflicts of interest]

All authors are expected to disclose all financial relationships that could undermine the objectivity, integrity, or perceived value of a publication. The Editors will keep the potential conflicts in mind while evaluating the manuscripts.

The Journal requires that all authors issue a statement disclosing all financial holdings, professional affiliations, advisory positions, board memberships, and patent holdings, as described below, even if they believe their conflict is not germane to the content of the submitted paper (these correspond to the first tier of potential conflicts defined for Editors). Such potential conflicts will be published in a footnote if the manuscript is ultimately accepted. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to collect the list of all potential conflicts from each author and to communicate it to the Editors with the submission.

Potential conflicts to be disclosed by authors
  1. Ownership. If an author currently has direct ownership of equity in a private or public company in the health care field of $10,000 or more (including restricted stock; the market price of all options, vested or unvested; and warrants), a first-tier potential conflict must be declared. Interests held by the author’s immediate family members (spouse and/or children) are included. This does not apply to ownership of mutual funds, where the author does not directly control the purchase and sale of stocks.
  2. Income. If an author has received $10,000 or more of income per annum from any single private or public company in the health care field in the calendar year preceding the date of the original submission, a potential conflict must be declared. This includes any and all sources of financial benefit, including, but not limited to, consultancy, speaking fees, royalties, licensing fees, retainers, salary (including deferred compensation), honoraria, service on advisory boards, and providing testimony as an expert witness. Income generated by the author’s immediate family members (spouse and/or children) is included.
  3. Research support. If an author’s research was funded by $50,000 or more per annum from a private or public company in the health care field in the fiscal year preceding the date of the original submission, including funding for personnel working within the laboratory, a potential conflict must be declared.
  4. Intellectual property. If an author is an inventor on a planned, pending, or awarded patent, a potential conflict must be declared.

Any questions concerning these potential conflicts should be addressed to editors@the-jci.org.

Reviewer conflicts of interest

[Top of page] | [Conflicts of interest]

The peer review process rests on the assumption that an assigned reviewer will treat all manuscripts as privileged information. A reviewer may request advice from another party, subject to the general principle of confidentiality and prior notification to the JCI. The contents of unpublished manuscripts that are disclosed as part of the peer review process may not be used for the reviewer’s research.

Referees should exclude themselves in cases where there is a potential financial, personal, or scientific conflict of interest. Referees must inform the Editors of any potential conflicts that might be perceived as relevant as early as possible following invitation to participate in the review so that the Editors may determine how to proceed. Referees must disclose to the Editors conflicts relevant to the manuscript as follows:

  1. The reviewer has ownership in or income from a private or public company that has provided funding for the study or has a competing interest that could be positively or negatively impacted by the publication of a manuscript under consideration.
  2. An individual with whom the reviewer has a close personal relationship (former student, fellow or mentor, or relative, for example) or who is a recent collaborator (within the last 3 years) is on the author list. Relevant collaborations include coauthoring a research article or serving as co-investigators on a grant.
  3. Any authors from the reviewer’s academic institution.
  4. Known negotiations or pending prospective employment offers that would create an institutional conflict.
  5. The manuscript contains data highly related to the reviewer’s ongoing or submitted research studies.
  6. The reviewer has a planned, pending, or awarded patent that could be positively or negatively impacted by the publication of a manuscript under consideration.
 

Misconduct allegations

[Top of page] | [Conflicts of interest]

Allegations of scientific misconduct in JCI publications are taken very seriously and carefully reviewed by the Editors. The Journal holds high standards regarding transparency in conflicts of interest for individuals alleging misconduct just as we do for our Editors, Authors, and Reviewers. Individuals alleging misconduct may still opt to remain anonymous, however, they will be required to provide a written statement (by email or in a hard copy) regarding financial and other conflicts of interest. Declaring a conflict of interest does not invalidate an allegation; however, the Editors will consider this information as part of their review. Potential conflicts should be declared even if individuals alleging misconduct believe their conflict is not germane to the content of the published article.

Potential conflicts to be disclosed by individuals alleging misconduct:

  • Ownership. If the individual alleging misconduct currently has direct ownership of equity in a private or public company in the health care field of $10,000 or more (including restricted stock; the market price of all options, vested or unvested; and warrants), a first-tier potential conflict must be declared. Interests held by immediate family members (spouse and/or children) are included. This does not apply to ownership of mutual funds, where the individual does not directly control the purchase and sale of stocks. If the individual alleging misconduct is planning to acquire equity in a private or public company in the health care field, a potential conflict must be declared.
  • Open short position. Individuals alleging misconduct must declare if they hold an open short position in securities related to any public company in the research or health care field.
  • Income. If the individual alleging misconduct has received compensation related to the detection of scientific misconduct, this must be declared. If the individual alleging misconduct has received $10,000 or more of income per annum from any single private or public company in the health care field in the calendar year preceding the date of the original submission, a potential conflict must be declared. This includes any and all sources of financial benefit, including, but not limited to, consultancy, speaking fees, royalties, licensing fees, retainers, salary (including deferred compensation), honoraria, service on advisory boards, and providing testimony as an expert witness. Income generated by immediate family members (spouse and/or children) is included.
  • Research support. If the research by the individual alleging misconduct was funded by $50,000 or more per annum from a private or public company in the health care field in the fiscal year preceding the date of the original submission, including funding for personnel working within the laboratory, a potential conflict must be declared.
  • Intellectual property. If the individual alleging misconduct is an inventor on a planned, pending, or awarded patent, a potential conflict must be declared.
  • Competing interest. If the individual alleging misconduct has a competing interest that could be positively or negatively impacted by a finding of scientific misconduct, this must be declared.
 

What happens after a manuscript is accepted?

[Top of page]

Life cycle of an accepted manuscript

  • Accepted PDF published as In-Press Preview
    • Accepted research manuscripts are published shortly after acceptance as In-Press Previews, unless the corresponding author opts out of the process. A PDF of the accepted paper will appear on the journal’s website prior to copyediting and layout, and will be indexed by PubMed. Publication of the In-Press Preview is considered the end of the article’s embargo period. This version will be replaced upon finalization of copyediting, layout, and author proofing according to the Journal’s regular publication schedule.
    • Prior to publication of the In-Press Preview, Journal staff will contact the corresponding author for the following:
      • A clean PDF of the paper, omitting any editorial comments, responses, or redlining
      • Confirmation of basic identifying information (e.g., title, author names, affiliations)
      • The opportunity to opt out is again provided at this time.
    • Note: No changes may be made to the In-Press Preview version once it is published on the Journal website; any edits must be included during review of the publication proof.
  • Submitting a potential cover image (optional)
    • Authors of accepted research manuscripts are invited to submit an image to be considered for a JCI issue cover. Such submissions are independent of manuscript submission, and selection is at the discretion of the Journal Editors. Click here for details.
  • Video abstract (optional)
    • Upon acceptance, senior authors are given the opportunity to submit a short Video abstract presenting highlights of the article, to be posted online with the final published version. Click here for details.
    • If you wish to submit a Video abstract, email production@the-jci.org.
  • Manuscript enters production process
    • At the same time the In-Press Preview is processed, the manuscript enters the Journal’s production system.
    • Copyediting staff edits for grammar, style, consistency, and clarity and inserts author queries as needed.
    • Production staff prepares figures and lays out the manuscript according to Journal style and format.
  • Author reviews publication proof
    • Production staff sends the corresponding author an email with a link to the publication proof PDF as well as an invoice for the publication fee.
    • A provisional final publication date is provided at this time.
    • The corresponding author’s proof responses must be received within 2 days; a late response to proofs could lead to a delay in publication.
    • If the corresponding author will be unavailable, Journal staff must be informed of another author responsible for the proof.
  • The author responds to the copy editor’s queries (which are embedded in the proof) and makes any other necessary corrections in an attachment in reply to the Journal’s proof email.
    • Note: Substantive changes are not permitted at this time.
    • Journal staff incorporates author changes and finalizes the article.
  • Final article is published
    • The authors are notified when the final, copyedited version of the article is published on the Journal’s website according to the publication schedule.
    • If an In-Press Preview has been published, this final version replaces it.
 

Published articles

[Top of page]

Article availability and PubMed Central

  • All research content is freely available on the Journal’s website (www.jci.org) immediately upon publication.
  • The Journal deposits all content to PubMed Central (PMC) on behalf of authors; authors do not need to submit their accepted articles separately.
  • Research articles are freely available in PMC 3 months after publication; this satisfies the NIH Public Access Policy and other similar funding agency requirements. Articles published with a CC BY license are freely available in PMC upon the publication date, without embargo.

Press embargoes

[Top of page]

  • The Editorial Board recognizes that some authors may wish to publicize their work in the lay press. The embargo date and time are established for each article to be published in the Journal, and violation of the embargo by authors is considered grounds for withdrawal of the manuscript from publication and/or other measures that the Editors may choose to take.
  • Publication of the In-Press Preview is considered the end of the article’s embargo period.
  • Any specific questions about the Journal’s embargo policy should be addressed to the Science Editors at press_releases@the-jci.org.

Indexing information

The JCI is indexed by the following:

  • Web of Science (Web of Knowledge)
  • Scopus
  • PubMed/Medline
  • PubMed Central
  • Sherpa Romeo
  • Crossref
  • Chemical Abstracts Service
  • Embase
  • Google Scholar
  • ProQuest Biological Science Collection

Publication fee

[Top of page]

  • Charges (in US$) assessed to authors help support publication of the journal.
  • For Research and Clinical Research and Public Health articles, the publication fee is $5,700.
  • For Research Letter articles, the publication fee is $1,500.
  • There is no charge for manuscripts in the Letter to the Editor category.
  • Authors receive an invoice with the publication proof.
  • Requests for publication fee discounts are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Copyright

[Top of page]

Effective with the January 4, 2022, issue, authors retain copyright on all articles, which are published with a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0).

See Open access for detailed information.

 

 

Advertisement