Journal list menu
EDITORIAL PROCESS OVERVIEW
Advanced Genetics publishes original research Articles, Reviews, Resources, Analysis and Perspectives in the areas of human, animal, plant and microbial genetics, genomics and epigenomics, selecting those reports for peer review that we judge editorially to have the highest research utility, ethical standards and societal impact. In-house editors will first evaluate the submission and will make the initial decision whether to proceed to peer review or return the manuscript to the author on editorial criteria. Generally, these criteria include conceptual advance over the existing literature, support for novel conclusions, utility to researchers and potential future research, and societal and economic value that could stem from the published report.
Peer review by at least two external reviewers will be undertaken after editorial screening. The journal will avoid adding reviewers during the peer review process unless our need for additional expertise is explained. All referee exclusions made by the authors will be honored without the need to give a reason, however, fair review may not be possible if an author excludes all the suitable referees in a field. Referees recommended by the authors are welcomed, subject to the same criteria we use for the referees we select. Advisory Board Members may be asked to review if and only if their expertise and interests are aligned with the submission.
Unless the authors specifically request an exception at any time in the review process, the journal will undertake transparent peer review. This means that reviewers are asked to agree that their full comments will be made available to the authors and editors alike, and these will be published if the manuscript is accepted. In the event of acceptance, the final publication will make available all reviewer comments, author responses and editor decisions. Confidentiality of authors and reviewers will be maintained in all cases, including rejection.
In editorial decisions before and after peer review, Advanced Genetics editors will explain their view of the manuscript and provide customized feedback and explanation to the submitting authors. In decisions after peer review, the editors will provide their specific interpretation of the reviewers’ comments and will make decisions that not only reflect the referee recommendations and the standards of the journal but also the editor’s own view of the submission. If reviewers raise subjective concerns about conceptual advance or novelty, the editors will tell the authors explicitly when the editors have decided they do or do not agree with the referees. Editors will explain to authors and referees in any case where they decide to overrule a referee on subjective grounds or because of a journal standard.
On technical concerns, editors usually defer to referees provided the criticism is objective and aligned with published standards for a specific field. In this case, editors may ask the authors for a preliminary response to the referee concerns before arriving at a decision. If a revision is invited, the editors will provide specific instruction and be available to answer author questions.
Authors may appeal journal decisions. Because reviewer time and effort cannot be taken for granted and editorial resources are finite, the journal will deny appeals on post-review rejection unless the editors are convinced the peer reviewer concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Appeals offering new data, independent replication or extensive reanalysis requested by reviewers or editors are most likely to succeed.
Advanced Genetics does not impose strict word count or figure limits. To increase accessibility for non-specialist readers, the journal’s recommendations are listed under Format Guidelines.
Original research papers submitted as Article, Analysis, Technical Report, and Resource are peer-reviewed by expert external referees, require statements of conflicts of interest and declaration of data accessibility.
Article – reports of original conceptual advances based on generation of new data. Original Research requiring a Data Accessibility statement. There is no word limit, but to ensure timely review, we recommend up to 8 display items and 4,000 words main text, full Methods, and unlimited references. Editorial criteria for Articles include conceptual advance over the existing literature. Because each submission is unique and prior publications on a given topic vary, the editors benchmark specific examples for their decision whether or not the work reports a sufficient conceptual advance.
Analysis – new hypotheses from existing accessible data tested with existing data, often showcasing the utility of new algorithms, code and workflows. Original Research where a Data Accessibility statement may be useful to demonstrate data stewardship or markup. There is no word limit, but to ensure timely review, we recommend 4 display items, 2,000 words main text, full Methods, and unlimited references. Editors will consider the resource value of data stewardship and new software as well as the utility of the insights gained and will prioritize Analysis that both generates hypotheses and evaluates them critically.
Technical Report – new methodological advances of great utility, without necessarily demonstrating a new conceptual advance in biology. The Technical Report must describe the newly devised technique in sufficient detail for readers to use for themselves. Original Research requiring a Data Accessibility statement. There is no word limit, but to ensure timely review, we recommend up to 8 display items and 4,000 words, full Methods, and unlimited references.
Resource – datasets of broad and timely utility to the field richly described and annotated but before any biological insight has necessarily been extracted. Data deposition in an open or access-controlled public repository is mandatory for this content type. Original Research requiring a Data Accessibility statement. There is no word limit, but to ensure timely review, we recommend up to 8 display items and 4,000 words main text, full Methods, and unlimited references.
Original manuscripts in Review, Perspective and Correspondence format are peer-reviewed. They require statement of conflicts of interest.
Perspective – a type of Review offering new insights, standards and strategic directions for the field, derived from selective reanalysis of the existing literature. There is no word limit, but to ensure timely review, we recommend 2 display items, 2 text boxes, 3,000 words main text and unlimited references.
Correspondence (letters to the editor) – evidence-based opinion pieces arising from published content or announcing resources of interest to the community. We suggest 1000 words and one display item with unlimited references. These are always sent for peer review and where appropriate accompanied by a peer reviewed author Reply. Please provide evidence of correspondence with published authors prior to submission in the case where a peer reviewed Reply may be appropriate. A Data Accessibility statement may be needed if new data is generated.
Editorial material in Preview and Editorial are internally reviewed by in-house editors.
Editorials – are written by the journal’s editors. Contents in this format communicate the opinion of the Journal or announce new journal policies, initiatives and workflows. Editorials are not commissioned or solicited.
Preview – is a brief highlight of a specific study recently published in Advanced Genetics or in another journal. It is an invited piece where the journal’s editors ask an expert in the field to write it. The format is intended for non-specialist readers and is not externally peer reviewed.
Please note that the journal does not currently accept case reports. We encourage authors wishing to publish case reports to consider Clinical Case Reports.
Authors interested in submitting comments, questions, or criticisms about published articles, should contact the editorial office.
FIRST SUBMISSION AND INITIAL EDITORIAL DECISION
Authors should note that submission implies that the content has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere except as a brief abstract in the proceedings of a scientific meeting or symposium, or as a preprint in a server used by the community.
Submissions should be made via the online manuscript tracking system. Click here for further information on how to use the ScholarOne submission system. For technical help with the submission system, please contact [email protected]
Initial submission does not need to be formatted to Advanced Genetics style. For ease of evaluation and ease of submission, the Journal recommends an editable Word .docx or Authorea text document and a single merged PDF that includes all parts of main text and high-resolution figures embedded into the file. A suitable PDF will be constructed by uploading text and figures using the online manuscript tracking system.
Advanced Genetics will consider articles previously available as preprints our own open preprint archive or community servers such bioRxiv. Authors are requested to update any pre-publication versions with a link to the final published article if accepted for publication at Advanced Genetics. Authors may also post the final published version of the article immediately after publication. Wiley’s global preprint policy is noted here.
Cover letters are not mandatory. However, they are a good opportunity to express your enthusiasm for your work and help the editor to put it into context. Cover letters are not shared with reviewers; they will remain confidential between authors and editors.
Initial file check
When a submission is made via online system, an editorial publishing assistant will check the submission files to ensure that the necessary information has been entered to the system. If there are missing materials, the editorial publishing assistant will contact the corresponding author. Once cleared from file checks, the manuscript is assigned to a handling editor. Assignment is based on editor expertise and availability and prior interaction between any editor and author.
The handling editor reads the submission and writes a synopsis of the manuscript. He or she also examines the existing literature on the topic, and evaluates the submissions by editorial criteria. The handling editor shares the written assessment of the submission with other editors at the journal, and leads an online discussion of the submission with other editors. The editor then makes the decision whether or not to send the paper for peer-review.
Advanced Genetics recognizes that the assessment of conceptual advance and potential utility and interest are subjective. The Journal’s editors therefore keep the following questions in mind when assessing a submitted manuscript and then provide specific explanation how these considerations apply to the selection of this particular manuscript.
- What is already known in this area and related fields?
- What gap in knowledge motivates this research?
- How do the main claims of this study relate to benchmark prior publications?
- Is this field new, growing or mature?
- What new insight is offered by the current submission?
- If confirmation, or a negative finding, what is the value added?
- Are many labs likely to conduct their research differently because of these findings?
- Is the paper likely attract readers beyond the immediate research community of the study?
- Is the main conclusion generalizable to other areas of genetics and genomics?
Strength of conclusion
- What evidence and methods support the main claim of the study?
- Are the experimental and analytical approaches aligned with the current community standards?
- What are the technical issues with key datasets and workflows, what reviewer expertise might we need?
- Are the authors skeptical, are alternative interpretations ruled out?
- Is there clear separation of hypothesis generation and testing?
- Are conclusions replicated or supported by multiple lines of evidence?
Rejection without peer-review
If a submission is unlikely to benefit from peer-review in its present form, the editors will provide custom feedback on the rejection. The reasons will reflect on the editorial criteria above, and provide specific examples in the literature.
INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS
We are tremendously grateful for the essential guidance our peer reviewers provide the authors in meeting the exacting and evolving standards of our field. The journal’s standards evolve and refine because of our referees and advisors’ recommendations and the innovative ways in which our authors implement their advice.
Transparent peer review
Advanced Genetics encourages deposition and citation of preprints and mandates data citation. We practice transparent peer review which means that peer reviewer comments, editor decisions and author rebuttals will be published as a separate report linked to accepted articles. In the case of rejection, the comments are available so that the work already done by reviewers, editors and authors may be transferred to other journals. By agreeing to review for this journal, reviewers agree that all their comments will be made available to authors and the other referees and will be published if the paper is accepted. Reviewer comments will remain anonymous unless the reviewers sign the transparent review. Reviewers should therefore decline to review initially if they do not wish to make their reviews available in this manner. In exceptional cases, authors may state in the publication that they have requested that the report of review be entirely redacted.
Strong editorial selection
Advanced Genetics editors select articles on the basis of conceptual advance over published literature, resource value and utility to other researchers, scientific rigor, adherence to technical and ethical standards, and evidence that the data amply support the authors’ conclusions.
Recognition for reviewers
To highlight the skill and importance of reviewing, Wiley has partnered with Publons to give reviewers formal recognition for their contribution. In this partnership, reviewers can elect to have their Advanced Genetics transparent reviews automatically added to their reviewer profile on Publons. This is an optional service to reviewers. Click here for additional details.
Peer reviewers are selected for their technical expertise and overview of their specific fields of research interest. If you wish to recruit a colleague to review with you for reasons of mentorship or complementary technical knowledge, please contact the editor before sharing access to the manuscript. Undeclared co-reviewing is incompatible with transparent peer review and prevents us from giving credit to your colleague’s important contribution to open research.
Advanced Genetics will maintain full confidentiality and not reveal reviewer identity unless reviewers themselves ask us specifically to do so. We discourage referees from revealing their identity during review, but they will be consulted if they wish to do so once peer review is completed when they review the Next Peer Review Report prior to publication.
Peer review is single blind: authors do not know referee identity during review, and we deplore any effort to determine the identity of peer reviewers or in any other way to interfere with the fair operation of peer review. Similarly, reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process and declare any competing interests. Wiley’s policy on confidentiality of the review process is available here.
Transfer to other Wiley journals
In the case a manuscript is not suitable for Advanced Genetics, the submitting authors may choose to transfer their manuscript and the reviewer comments to another other Wiley journal as a part of Wiley Open Access Manuscript Transfer. By agreeing to review for Advanced Genetics, reviewers acknowledge that their comments may be shared with another Wiley journal and its editors. If the authors choose to transfer the submission and reviewer comments, Advanced Genetics editors will confirm with the reviewers again for their permission to transfer their comments and/or their identity to the recipient journal’s editors.
Advanced Genetics follows the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). When asked to review, the Journal asks that the reviewers declare to the editor if they have potential conflicts of interest related to the submission, or none. The Journal also asks reviewers to uphold confidentiality of the submission and to assess the report in a timely way.
In accordance with the Peer Review guidelines issued by the World Association of Medical Editors, the Journals asks its reviewers to consider following points:
“Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as follows:
- The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology
- The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author’s interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
- The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
- The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
- The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
- The reviewer’s comments to the author should be constructive and professional
- The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript. “
(quoted from Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals by the World Association of Medical Editors. For further information, refer to www.WAME.org.)
Editorial practices and ethics
All referee exclusions made by the authors will be honored without the need to give a reason, however, fair review may not be possible if an author excludes all the suitable referees in a field. Referees recommended by the authors are welcomed, subject to the same criteria we use for the referees we select. Advisory Board Members may be asked to review if and only if their expertise and interests are aligned with the submission.
Advanced Genetics pursues editorial approaches that help us avoid bias. We maintain the highest standards of peer review whilst working to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. We publish our efforts to judge information objectively on its own merits and thereby to avoid favoring information, for example, from particular institutions, countries, or regions. To do this, we peer review one another’s editorial decisions within the team, and strive constantly to meet and assign referees from a diverse referee community with respect to geography, gender, technical expertise and career stage. Editorial advisors do not make publication decisions on individual papers and no authors peer review their own papers or those from their own institution. Editors’ publication decisions and Editorials are subject to moderation by the editorial team, but editors make their own decisions. In the case where an author of a peer reviewed work is a Wiley employee or editor of another Wiley title, that individual has no input to any publication decisions on that work.
By submitting a manuscript to or reviewing for this publication, your name, email address, and affiliation, and other contact details the publication might require, will be used for the regular operations of the publication, including, when necessary, sharing with the publisher (Wiley) and partners for production and publication. The publication and the publisher recognize the importance of protecting the personal information collected from users in the operation of these services and have practices in place to ensure that steps are taken to maintain the security, integrity, and privacy of the personal data collected and processed. You can learn more by reading Wiley’s data protection policy.Journal list menu Tools Follow journal Advanced Genetics EDITORIAL PROCESS OVERVIEW Advanced Genetics publishes original research Articles, Reviews, Resources, Analysis and ]]>