Ageing Research Reviews Submission Guide: Requirements & Editorial Fit

Submit through Elsevier's Editorial Manager system. The portal requires separate file uploads for each component. Don't combine everything into one document.

• Required files:
• Main manuscript (Word or LaTeX)
• Structured abstract (separate file)
• Graphical abstract (required, not optional)
• Author agreement form
• Conflict of interest statement
• Copyright transfer form

• Manuscript structure requirements:

1. Title page with all author information and affiliations
2. Structured abstract (250 words max) with these exact headings: Background, Scope, Major Conclusions, General Significance
3. Keywords (6-8 terms, not in title)
4. Main text with numbered sections
5. Acknowledgments
6. References (minimum 200, preferably 250+)
7. Figure legends
8. Tables (if any)

• Word count specifications:
• Total manuscript: 8,000-15,000 words (excluding references and figure legends)
• Abstract: 250 words maximum
• Keywords: 6-8 terms

• Reference formatting:

Use numbered citations in square brackets 1,2,3]. Don't use superscript. References must follow Elsevier's standard format exactly. Most [desk rejections happen because authors submit with the wrong reference style.

• Figure requirements:
• High resolution (300 DPI minimum for final publication)
• TIFF or EPS format for line art
• RGB color mode acceptable for online publication
• Each figure needs a detailed legend explaining all symbols, abbreviations, and statistical analyses
• Maximum 10 figures per review

• Graphical abstract specifications:
• Single image summarizing your review's main theme
• 500 pixels wide minimum
• Include brief text explanation (25 words max)
• Should be understandable without reading the full paper

Don't submit supplementary material. Ageing Research Reviews rarely publishes supplementary files for review articles. If you can't fit essential information in the main manuscript, your review is probably trying to cover too much.

The journal requires author contributions statements even for review articles. Use CRediT taxonomy: Conceptualization, Writing, Review & Editing, Visualization, etc.

Initial editorial screening takes 5-10 days. Desk rejection rate is approximately 50-60% (according to SciRev community data). Most desk rejections happen because the submission doesn't match journal scope or lacks sufficient mechanistic depth.

Source: Ageing Research Reviews editorial process, Elsevier journal metrics

Papers surviving initial screening go to 2-3 expert reviewers. Average review time is 8-12 weeks for first decision. Reviewers focus on:

• Comprehensiveness of coverage
• Accuracy of mechanistic explanations
• Integration of recent literature
• Identification of knowledge gaps
• Clarity for non-specialist readers

• Typical review outcomes:
• Accept with minor revisions (15%)
• Major revisions required (35%)
• Reject with option to resubmit (25%)
• Reject without resubmission option (25%)

Major revisions usually involve adding recent references, clarifying mechanistic explanations, or restructuring sections for better flow. Reviewers rarely ask for completely new sections unless coverage gaps are significant.

Revised manuscripts get re-reviewed, typically by the same reviewers. Second review takes 4-6 weeks. Most papers requiring major revisions eventually get accepted if authors address reviewer concerns thoroughly.

• Red flags that trigger rejection:
• Incomplete coverage of recent literature (past 2 years)
• Mechanistic explanations that contradict established knowledge
• Heavy reliance on outdated references
• Lack of critical analysis (just summarizing without evaluation)
• Poor English that interferes with comprehension

The journal uses single-blind review. Reviewers know author identities, but authors don't know reviewer identities. This isn't negotiable.

Your cover letter should be 200-300 words maximum. Editors read these quickly and want specific information, not generic enthusiasm.

• Essential cover letter elements:

State your review's specific focus in one sentence. "This review examines molecular mechanisms linking cellular senescence to age-related cardiovascular dysfunction."

Explain why now matters. What recent developments make this review timely? New therapeutic targets? Contradictory findings that need resolution?

Identify your unique perspective. What makes your review different from others in this area? Specific expertise? Novel mechanistic insights?

• Avoid these cover letter mistakes:

Don't claim your review is "the first" or "most comprehensive" unless you can prove it. Editors know the literature.

Don't list co-author credentials unless they're directly relevant to the review topic.

Don't promise future submissions. Focus on the current manuscript.

Journal Cover Letter Template: 5 Filled-In Examples for Any Journal (2026) provides specific templates you can adapt for aging research topics.

• Scope creep kills more submissions than poor writing. Authors try to cover everything related to aging instead of focusing on specific mechanisms. A review titled "Aging and Disease" won't get past editorial screening. A review titled "SASP-Mediated Tissue Dysfunction in Cardiovascular Aging" might.

• Reference recency problems. Aging research moves fast. If more than 30% of your references are older than 3 years, editors assume you haven't done adequate literature review. Exception: seminal papers that established fundamental concepts.

• Mechanistic superficiality. Don't just list what happens during aging. Explain molecular pathways, regulatory networks, and causal relationships. Reviewers want to understand how cellular processes connect to organism-level phenotypes.

• Figure quality disasters. Low-resolution images, unreadable text, or figures copied from other papers without proper attribution trigger immediate rejection. Create original schematic diagrams showing pathways or conceptual frameworks.

• Abstract structure violations. The journal requires specific abstract headings. Don't use your own headings or combine sections. Follow the format exactly: Background, Scope, Major Conclusions, General Significance.

• Inadequate conflict of interest disclosure. Aging research often involves industry collaborations or consulting relationships. Declare everything that could potentially influence your review. When in doubt, disclose.

• Poor section organization. Reviews need logical flow from basic mechanisms to disease applications to therapeutic implications. Don't jump between molecular and clinical concepts without clear transitions.

• Statistical misrepresentation. When citing experimental studies, report effect sizes and confidence intervals, not just p-values. Aging research suffers from small sample sizes and publication bias.

• Plagiarism through paraphrasing. Don't copy sentences from other reviews and change a few words. Write original explanations of concepts, even if they've been described before.

10 Signs Your Paper Isn't Ready to Submit (Yet) covers additional quality checks before submission.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Ageing Research Reviews, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

According to Ageing Research Reviews submission guidelines, each pattern below represents a documented desk-rejection trigger; per SciRev data and Clarivate JCR 2024 benchmarks, addressing these before submission meaningfully reduces early-rejection risk.

• Review without documented systematic search methodology (roughly 35%). The Ageing Research Reviews author guidelines require that review articles describe the literature identification process. In our experience, roughly 35% of review submissions that reach us lack a documented search strategy: no database list, no search terms, no date range, no inclusion and exclusion criteria. Editors consistently flag undocumented search scope as a sign the review is curated rather than systematic, and return these papers before external review.

• Single-model findings without comparative aging context (roughly 25%). In our experience, roughly 25% of submissions report aging-related findings from a single organism or model system and present them as broadly relevant to human aging. Editors consistently flag these submissions for failing to address whether the mechanism operates across multiple aging contexts, whether it is conserved from model organisms to humans, and whether the findings replicate in primary human cells or tissue. Papers that cannot address cross-species or cross-model relevance are treated as preliminary.

• Reviews cataloging findings without synthesizing principles (roughly 20%). In our experience, roughly 20% of submitted reviews describe what individual studies found without extracting the overarching mechanistic principles that explain the pattern. Ageing Research Reviews expects that reviews do more than summarize: they must identify shared pathways, contradictions in the literature, and emerging frameworks. Editors consistently flag reviews that read as annotated bibliographies rather than mechanistic syntheses, returning them with requests to reframe around organizing principles.

• Missing quantitative synthesis when meta-analysis is feasible (roughly 15%). In our experience, roughly 15% of review submissions on topics with sufficient published data present only narrative summaries when the literature base would support a pooled analysis or systematic quantification. Editors consistently flag submissions where meta-analysis of effect sizes, hazard ratios, or biomarker trajectories is feasible but absent. If it is feasible and the authors have not done it, the review is considered incomplete.

• Biomarker papers lacking functional aging validation (roughly 10%). In our experience, roughly 10% of submissions report correlations between a candidate biomarker and aging outcomes without demonstrating that the marker reflects a functional aging process rather than a disease comorbidity or confounding variable. Editors consistently reject biomarker papers that cannot show the marker tracks biological age across independent cohorts and responds to interventions known to modulate aging trajectories.

Before submitting to Ageing Research Reviews, an Ageing Research Reviews manuscript fit check identifies whether your literature methodology, synthesis depth, and mechanistic framing meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Looking for alternatives? How to Choose the Right Journal for Your Paper (A Practical Guide) compares aging research journals by scope and selectivity.

Need help with your cover letter? Journal Cover Letter Template: 5 Filled-In Examples for Any Journal (2026) includes aging research examples.

Quality check your manuscript: 10 Signs Your Paper Isn't Ready to Submit (Yet) covers review-specific quality markers.

If you're preparing a review manuscript for Ageing Research Reviews or other aging journals, Manusights provides pre-submission review focused on scope fit, mechanistic depth, and technical requirements that aging research editors prioritize.