International Journal of Biological Macromolecules Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

IJBM follows the standard Elsevier abstract format with discipline-specific expectations.

• Length: 250 words or fewer

• Structure: Single unstructured paragraph

• Citations: Not permitted

• Abbreviations: Define at first use

• Keywords: 1 to 7 keywords required below the abstract

For a macromolecules journal, the abstract needs to specify which macromolecule you're studying and its source or preparation method. Reviewers expect quantitative results in the abstract: don't just say the biopolymer film showed "good" mechanical properties. Give the tensile strength, elongation at break, or whatever the primary metric is.

Keywords should be specific to your macromolecule system. "Biopolymer" alone is too broad. Better choices include "chitosan nanoparticles," "starch-based film," "collagen hydrogel," or "cellulose nanocrystals." The keywords drive the editor assignment and reviewer matching process, and IJBM's scope is broad enough that poor keyword selection leads to mismatched reviews.

IJBM follows Elsevier's standard figure guidelines.

Figure specifications:

Discipline-specific figure expectations:

Protein structure figures (rendered from PDB files) should include a clear indication of the rendering software (PyMOL, ChimeraX, VMD) in the caption. Color coding should be consistent and explained in the legend. Stick figures, surface representations, and ribbon diagrams should use standard conventions.

For SEM/TEM images of biopolymer materials (nanoparticles, nanofibers, films), scale bars are mandatory. Include magnification and accelerating voltage in the caption. Multiple magnifications of the same sample should be presented as multi-panel figures for space efficiency.

FTIR spectra, XRD patterns, and TGA/DSC curves are staples of IJBM papers. These should be plotted with clear axis labels, consistent font sizes, and sufficient resolution. Overlaid spectra (comparing multiple samples) need a legend that's readable at the published column width. Don't use color alone to distinguish curves; use different line styles (solid, dashed, dotted) as well.

Do not treat the graphical abstract as the main IJBM-specific rule unless the current submission portal requests it. The current guide's more stable formatting checks are the Regular-paper page guidance, abstract limit, reference cap, numbered references, and Elsevier Highlights file where applicable.

Highlights:

• Prepare 3 to 5 bullet points

• Keep each bullet under 85 characters including spaces

• Submit them as an editable separate file if the portal requests a Highlights upload

• Make the method, macromolecule, and result visible without repeating the title

Graphical abstract:

• Verify whether the current Editorial Manager workflow asks for one

• If required for your article type, keep it as a single clear visual summary

• Follow Elsevier artwork rules for resolution, lettering, and file quality

Common mistakes with IJBM Highlights and graphical extras:

• Writing Highlights as full sentences copied from the abstract. They should be short, scannable findings.

• Forgetting that Highlights are character-limited. Long bullets get truncated or returned for correction.

• Using a graphical abstract as a dense multi-panel figure. If the portal requests one, make it a visual summary, not Figure 1.

• Using copyrighted icons, stock images, or reused paper figures without permission.

IJBM uses the Elsevier numbered reference system.

In-text citations: Numbers in square brackets [1], [2,3], [4-7]. Numbered in order of first appearance.

Reference list format (worked example, Elsevier numbered style):

[1] A.B. Smith, C.D. Jones, E.F. Williams, Chitosan-based antimicrobial films, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. **260** (2025) 129512.

Key formatting details:

• Author names: Initials first, then surname (e.g., "J.K. Smith")

• Commas between authors

• Journal names abbreviated per ISO 4

• Volume in bold

• DOIs recommended

• For references with more than 6 authors, list the first 6 followed by "et al."

IJBM papers typically cite 40 to 60 references. There's no strict cap, but reviewers may comment if a Research Article cites over 80 references, since that suggests the paper might be review-length content squeezed into a research format.

Given IJBM's page-based Regular-paper guidance, supplementary material is essential for most IJBM papers.

Common supplementary content:

• Full FTIR/NMR spectra that support but don't drive the main narrative

• Additional microscopy images

• Extended biological assay data

• Statistical analysis details

• Molecular docking parameters and extended results

Formatting:

• Submit as a single PDF when possible

• Use Fig. S1, Table S1 numbering

• Each item must be cited in the main text

• Maximum 50 MB per file

A word of caution: IJBM reviewers notice when authors dump essential results into supplementary material to stay under the word limit. If a result is necessary to support a main text claim, it should be in the main text. Supplementary material is for supporting evidence, not overflow.

For protein structure data, deposit coordinates in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) and include the accession code in the manuscript. For nucleic acid sequences, use GenBank. For polysaccharide characterization data, there's no universal repository yet, but Zenodo or Mendeley Data work well.

Details specific to IJBM:

The current length rule is page-based, not word-based. Regular papers are preferably no more than 20 double-line-spaced manuscript pages, including tables and illustrations. That is a different planning problem from trimming only the prose.

Highlights are short, portal-facing artifacts. Prepare 3 to 5 Highlights under 85 characters each, but do not confuse that file with the abstract or with a graphical abstract. The best Highlights name the macromolecule, method, and result in compressed form.

Biological macromolecule nomenclature must follow IUPAC/IUBMB conventions. Protein names should use standard nomenclature. Polysaccharide names should follow the carbohydrate nomenclature guidelines. Non-standard abbreviations need to be defined at first use.

Ethical approval documentation. For papers involving animal studies, human tissue, or cell lines of human origin, IJBM requires ethics committee approval details in the Methods section. Include the committee name, approval number, and date. This is checked during the technical screening.

CRediT author statement and declaration of competing interests are mandatory. Standard Elsevier requirements, enforced at submission.

IJBM has a particularly strict stance on plagiarism. The journal uses iThenticate to screen all submissions. Similarity scores above 20% trigger manual review by the editorial office. Self-plagiarism (reusing text from your own prior publications) is treated the same as plagiarism. Paraphrase your methods if you've used the same techniques in previous papers.

For manuscripts targeting International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

Highlights missing or incorrectly formatted. IJBM uses the Elsevier Highlights workflow where applicable: 3 to 5 bullet highlights, each under 85 characters including spaces. Papers submitted with missing portal-requested files or overlong bullets can be returned through Editorial Manager before peer review. This affects a consistent proportion of first-time Elsevier submissions.

Structural characterization insufficient for macromolecule claims. IJBM reviewers expect comprehensive structural and physicochemical characterization for new biopolymer preparations: molecular weight (SEC or GPC), degree of substitution (NMR), thermal analysis (DSC, TGA), and morphology (SEM or AFM where relevant). Papers that characterize a new chitosan derivative or starch modification with only IR and XRD, omitting molecular weight determination, are returned for additional characterization.

Biological activity assays lack positive controls and IC50/MIC data. Papers reporting antimicrobial, antioxidant, or anticancer activity of macromolecule-based materials must include positive controls (reference compounds at known concentrations), dose-response curves, and calculated IC50, MIC, or equivalent activity metrics. Studies reporting percent inhibition at a single concentration without a full activity curve are flagged as inconclusive.

Scope is synthetic polymer science rather than biological macromolecules. IJBM publishes research on naturally occurring biopolymers (polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, lipopolysaccharides) and their modifications. Purely synthetic polymers without a biological backbone or biological application context are desk-rejected for scope.

In our pre-submission review work, this is the single most common scope rejection: a competent materials paper on a wholly synthetic polymer is sent to IJBM for its high throughput rather than its fit, and the editorial office returns it before review. The fix is a venue decision, not a manuscript edit, so we flag it early and point the author to a polymer or materials journal where the same data is in scope.

Manusights internal analysis and review data also show a separate formatting pattern: papers can be scientifically plausible for IJBM but still stall because the abstract, Highlights, figure sequence, and supplementary-file split were prepared from an older word-count checklist rather than the current page-based guide. In practice, we see this most often when teams update the title page and references but leave the abstract length, Highlights file, and figure/table count from an older draft. What actually happens is a technical-check delay, not a scientific rejection.

The specific failure pattern is an outdated checklist applied to a current IJBM package: the manuscript may be in scope, but the upload package no longer matches the live page-basis and file requirements.

Our analysis of IJBM formatting returns shows that catching this before upload is faster than trying to repair the package after Editorial Manager has already returned the submission.

A International Journal of Biological Macromolecules submission readiness check evaluates manuscript scope, Elsevier formatting compliance, and characterization completeness against these desk-rejection patterns.