Endocrine Reviews Submission Guide
A practical Endocrine Reviews submission guide for endocrinologists evaluating their proposed synthesis against the journal's invited model and clinical/translational scope.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to approach Endocrine Reviews
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Scope check |
2. Package | Formatting check |
3. Cover letter | Editorial screening |
4. Final check | Peer review |
Quick answer: This Endocrine Reviews submission guide is for endocrinologists evaluating whether to send a proposal. ER is invited-leaning.
Most published reviews are commissioned but unsolicited proposals are accepted. The standard path is a pre-submission inquiry establishing scope, timing, author authority, and candidate length.
Run an Endocrine Reviews pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit, or work through this guide manually.
If you're considering ER, the main risk is not formatting. It is proposing a topic where a recent comprehensive review already exists, where the author team's primary-research depth doesn't match the endocrinology subfield, or where the scope is too narrow.
From our manuscript review practice
Of pre-submission proposals we've reviewed for Endocrine Reviews, the most consistent rejection trigger is author authority gaps relative to the proposed endocrinology subfield. The journal commissions reviews from endocrinologists with sustained primary-research records in the exact topic.
How this page was created
This page was researched from Endocrine Reviews's author guidelines, Endocrine Society editorial-policy materials, Clarivate JCR data, SciRev community reports, and Manusights internal analysis of pre-submission proposals we've reviewed for ER and adjacent venues (Annual Review of Physiology, Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, Nature Reviews Endocrinology).
The failure pattern we observe most often is author authority mismatch.
Endocrine Reviews Journal Metrics
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor (2024 JCR) | 17.2 |
5-Year JIF | ~22+ |
CiteScore | 30.3 |
Acceptance Rate | ~15-25% |
First Decision (proposal) | 4-6 weeks |
Full Manuscript Decision | 8-16 weeks |
Publisher | Endocrine Society / Oxford University Press |
Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Endocrine Society editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).
ER Submission Requirements and Timeline
Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
Submission portal | Endocrine Society / OUP Editorial Manager |
Initial step | Pre-submission proposal preferred |
Proposal length | 1-2 pages |
Review article length | 30-60 pages typical |
References | 200-400+ |
Cover letter | Required |
Proposal response time | 4-6 weeks |
Full manuscript decision | 8-16 weeks |
Total to publication | 9-15 months |
Source: Endocrine Reviews author guidelines.
Submission snapshot
What to pressure-test | What should already be true before proposing |
|---|---|
Topic timing | No comprehensive review on this topic in ER, Annual Review of Physiology, or NRE in last 5 years |
Author authority | Corresponding author has sustained primary-research publications in the exact endocrinology subfield |
Scope breadth | Topic supports a 30-60 page comprehensive treatment |
Synthesis argument | Proposal articulates a specific framework the field needs |
Length realism | Proposed length matches topic's natural scope |
What this page is for
Use this page when deciding:
- whether the proposed topic has timing headroom
- whether the author team supports the authority ER requires
- whether the scope justifies a 30-60 page treatment
What should already be in the proposal
- specific topic and synthesis value
- "why now" inflection (clinical trial result, mechanism breakthrough, public-health moment)
- differentiation from existing reviews
- author CVs with primary-research evidence
Package mistakes that trigger proposal rejection
- Recent comprehensive coverage of the same topic.
- Author standing in adjacent rather than central endocrinology subfield.
- Synthesis argument missing. "A review of recent advances in [topic]" is not a synthesis argument.
- Scope wrong for the venue. Topics that fit a Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism opinion don't justify ER's depth.
What makes Endocrine Reviews a distinct target
ER is the Endocrine Society's flagship review venue, with an editorial standard tuned to comprehensive synthesis by leading endocrinologists.
Authority-driven selection: ER reviews are read as authoritative because authors built the field they're synthesizing.
The 5-year timing window: ER rarely commissions a comprehensive review of a topic covered by an existing ER or NRE piece within the last 5 years.
Clinical relevance expectation: unlike Annual Review of Physiology (more basic-science), ER expects translational or clinical relevance even for mechanistically-focused reviews.
What a strong proposal sounds like
The strongest ER proposals sound like a senior endocrinologist briefing the editorial office on a synthesis the field needs.
They usually:
- state the synthesis argument in one sentence
- explain the timing inflection
- distinguish from existing reviews
- establish author credentials with primary-research evidence
- propose a working title and approximate structure
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Diagnosing pre-proposal problems
Problem | Fix |
|---|---|
Topic was recently covered | Sharpen to a clearly distinct angle; if no distinct angle exists, choose a different topic |
Author authority is thin | Bring in a senior co-author with primary-research depth; or reproduce to Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism (lower authority bar) |
Synthesis argument unclear | Articulate the specific framework that distinguishes this synthesis |
Before submitting to Endocrine Reviews, an Endocrine Reviews submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.
How ER compares against nearby alternatives
Method note: the comparison reflects published author guidelines and Manusights internal analysis. We have not personally been ER authors; the boundary is publicly documented editorial behavior. Pros and cons are based on documented editorial scope.
Factor | Endocrine Reviews | Nature Reviews Endocrinology | Annual Review of Physiology | Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Best fit (pros) | Comprehensive endocrinology synthesis with clinical/translational relevance | Springer Nature distribution, broader endocrinology audience | Authoritative annual physiology synthesis | Timely opinion on endocrinology topics, faster turnaround |
Think twice if (cons) | Topic is broader physiology rather than endocrinology-specific | Topic is highly specialized clinical endocrinology | Topic is squarely clinical endocrinology rather than physiology | Synthesis is comprehensive review rather than focused opinion |
Submit If
- the proposed topic supports a 30-60 page comprehensive synthesis
- the corresponding author has sustained primary-research publications in the exact endocrinology subfield
- a specific recent inflection justifies the timing
- no comparable ER, NRE, or Annual Review of Physiology piece covered the topic in the last 5 years
Think Twice If
- the author team is established in adjacent rather than central endocrinology
- a comprehensive ER or NRE piece appeared in the last 5 years
- the proposal is "advances in [topic]" without a synthesis argument
- the topic would land better in Trends in Endocrinology or a specialty review venue
What to read next
- Is Endocrine Reviews a good journal?
Before drafting the proposal, run it through an Endocrine Reviews proposal-readiness check.
Official sources set the requirements, but the remaining question is manuscript fit. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Endocrine Reviews fit check before upload, especially around author standing is in adjacent rather than central endocrinology subfield, a comprehensive review of the topic appeared in adjacent venues recently, and proposal is a survey, not a synthesis. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.
Decision risks before submitting to Endocrine Reviews
Across Manusights submission reviews for proposals targeting ER, three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.
Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis shows many ER proposal rejections trace to author-authority mismatch with the proposed endocrinology subfield. The same pattern analysis often finds these cases involve timing collisions with recent ER or NRE pieces. A related pattern is that these cases often arise from proposals reading as comprehensive surveys without a specific synthesis argument.
Author standing is in adjacent rather than central endocrinology subfield
ER editors weigh authority heavily. We observe that proposals from authors with primary research in adjacent areas (general physiology, basic-science metabolism without clinical focus) are routinely declined.
A comprehensive review of the topic appeared in adjacent venues recently
ER editors check NRE, Annual Review of Physiology, and Trends in Endocrinology. We see proposals overlapping recent comprehensive reviews routinely declined unless the new piece offers a distinct synthesis.
The proposal is a survey, not a synthesis
Editors at ER look for a specific framework or argument. We find that proposals framed as "comprehensive review of recent progress" are routinely returned with the suggestion to articulate what specifically the synthesis will reorganize. A ER proposal-readiness check can identify whether the proposed argument and authority case are strong before submission.
Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places ER among top endocrinology review journals. SciRev author-reported data confirms 4-6 week proposal evaluation windows.
Check the proposal is a survey, not a synthesis before submitting to Endocrine Reviews →
What editors check before review
Before the reviewer-invitation stage, read the Endocrine Reviews package against the same risks this guide flags in the Manusights section. The practical question is whether the abstract, cover letter, figures or tables, methods, reporting statements, supplementary files, and references all make the journal choice obvious.
- If the abstract still points toward author standing is in adjacent rather than central endocrinology subfield, revise the central claim before upload.
- If the evidence package leaves a comprehensive review of the topic appeared in adjacent venues recently, strengthen the methods, controls, figures, or supplementary material rather than expecting reviewers to infer it.
- If the cover letter cannot resolve proposal is a survey, not a synthesis, compare the target journal against the adjacent venues named above before submitting.
Frequently asked questions
Endocrine Reviews is primarily commissioned. Authors typically submit a pre-proposal inquiry to the editorial office outlining scope, why now, and author qualifications. If editors are interested, they invite a full submission. Unsolicited full manuscripts are accepted but evaluated against the same authority and timing standards.
Comprehensive review articles synthesizing major endocrinology topics: hormone biology, endocrine disorders, diabetes, reproductive endocrinology, thyroid and adrenal disease, pediatric endocrinology, and translational endocrinology. Reviews typically run 30-60 pages with 200-400+ references.
Acceptance rate runs ~15-25% across invited and unsolicited proposals. The journal handles moderate volume and the editorial standard emphasizes comprehensive synthesis by authors with sustained primary-research records in the proposed endocrinology subfield. Median time from proposal acceptance to publication is 6-12 months.
Most rejections are timing-related (a comprehensive review on the topic appeared in Endocrine Reviews, Endocrine Reviews Companion, or Annual Review of Physiology recently), authority-related (proposing authors lack primary-research depth), or scope-related (topic too narrow for 30-60 page comprehensive treatment).
Sources
- Endocrine Reviews author guidelines
- Endocrine Reviews homepage
- Why publish with Endocrine Reviews, Oxford Academic.
- Endocrine Reviews editorial team, Oxford Academic.
- Endocrine Society publications hub, Oxford Academic.
- Endocrine Society reviewer resource center, Oxford Academic.
- Endocrine Society editorial policies
- Clarivate JCR 2024: Endocrine Reviews
- SciRev Endocrine Society journals data
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.