3. Development requests that authors limit the amount of Supplementary data that they submit with a paper. When assessing supplementary data, please check if all of the data submitted are appropriate and essential for supporting the findings of a paper. Please also note that we only accept data files as supplementary material, such as movies, figures, tables and datasets. We do not accept as supplementary material text files that contain: materials and methods, results or discussions. Such information should be included in the manuscript itself.
4. Development is only able to accept 25% of the papers it receives. Manuscripts receiving conflicting opinions are usually read by a third reviewer, after which an editorial decision is reached.
5. Finally, when writing your review, we would ask you please to avoid putting any explicit comments that a paper should be published in the Comments to author box. Comments along these lines should only be made in the Comments to Editor box.
Review articles
Reviews in Development are predominantly commissioned articles that aim to provide a timely, insightful and accessible overview of a particular field or aspect of developmental biological research. Longer reviews of ~5000 words provide a broad overview of a subject, by bringing together data from different fields and organisms, while shorter ones of ~3500-4500 words can be more focused on a particular topic.
Although authors are free to express their opinions in a review, they are asked to provide counterbalancing viewpoints where appropriate and to ensure that opinion and fact are clearly distinguishable.
Please bear in mind the following points when refereeing a review article:
1. Does the title clearly reflect what the article is about?
2. Are the author's arguments logically and coherently made? Are counterbalancing viewpoints acknowledged and discussed?
3. Does the author provide new insight into the topic being reviewed?
4. Is the article adequately and appropriately referenced?
5. Is the article too long? If so, what could be removed or condensed?
6. Is the information provided in figures, figure legends, boxes and tables clear and accurate?
Please note, that it is hard for us to reject commissioned manuscripts owing to a referee’s lack of general enthusiasm for an article. If you have specific concerns or objections, please do make these clear in your report.
Primer articles
Primer articles in Development are commissioned, short and accessible educational articles that aim to explain an aspect of developmental biology (such as a morphological process, signalling pathway or technique) to students and non-specialists. As such, these articles are intended to provide the developmental community with a teaching resource.
In contrast to reviews, Primers are fairly short (~3500 words) and succinct and visual – figures and display items should provide easily understandable and explanatory additional information.
Please bear in mind the following points when refereeing a Primer article:
1. Does the title clearly reflect what the article is about?
2. Are the author's explanations of the topic accessible to a non-specialist audience? Are their points logically and coherently made, and are counterbalancing viewpoints (where appropriate) acknowledged and discussed?
3. Does the author cover all the necessary aspects of the topic and provide an up-to-date account of it?
4. Is the article adequately and appropriately referenced?
5. Is the length of the article appropriate? (If not, please explain why.)
6. Is the information provided in figures, figure legends, boxes and tables clear and accurate?
Hypothesis articles
Hypothesis articles are commissioned, short (3000-4000 word), opinion-based pieces in which authors can propose a new theory, interpretation or model of a developmental process as a result of new findings published in a field. These articles can contain more speculation than a review, but any new theories proposed should be based on published data.
1. Does the author introduce and explain the topic under discussion sufficiently well to enable readers to place the new theory into the context of the field as a whole?
2. Does the author present coherent and well-supported arguments to support their hypothesis?
3. Does the author acknowledge any shortcomings in their hypothesis and do they propose ways in which their hypothesis could be tested?
4. If a debate exists in the field under discussion, are opposing viewpoints presented in a fair and balanced manner (authors are free to express which particular views they support in a debate but their discussion of opposing views should be accurate and balanced).
5. Does the author’s hypothesis provide new insights into the developmental process being discussed?
6. Is the article adequately and appropriately referenced?
7. Is the article too long? If so, what could be removed or condensed?
8. Is the information provided in figures, figure legends, boxes and tables clear and accurate?
