Physiological Reviews (APS) Submission Guide: Preproposal Path & Redirect Map

Source: Physiological Reviews on APS Journals, APS Journal Metrics and Outreach, and Hill et al. PMC8238136 editorial process documentation, accessed 2026-10-10.

Physiological Reviews operates an invitation-only model: APS lists it as by invitation only, and outside authors cannot upload manuscripts directly. The path for an outside author begins with a suggestion to the Editor; if the Editor, Deputy Editors and at least one Associate Editor agree on the excellence of the team and the likely impact of the review, they ask for a preproposal. APS publishes no preproposal format, so a preproposal should name the synthesis thesis, include anchor references, and provide proposing-author CV evidence of sustained authority in the central physiology subfield.

The editorial team discusses preproposals at biannual Associate Editor meetings, and the Editor makes the final decision on whether to issue an invitation. After an invitation, it takes on average 3 years until the review is submitted, and about 30 percent of invited reviews are abandoned. The full submission goes through the APS submission system once the manuscript is complete.

APS says manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope or quality requirements may be editorially rejected before review, with such decisions generally made in less than a week. The journal's About page reports an average of 3.3 months to first decision and 33.6 days to ahead-of-print publication.

Total manuscript length expected: 25 to 50 printed pages including figures and references (approximately 10000 to 25000 words), with at least 10 figures and no reference limit. APS publishes no preproposal length.

Invited Physiological Reviews articles follow these structural norms.

The length expectations reflect Physiological Reviews' comprehensive-synthesis identity; reviews shorter than 25 printed pages typically route to Current Opinion in Physiology, AJP specialty journals, or Comprehensive Physiology.

For preproposals:

For invited manuscripts (after invitation and outline approval):

Source: APS Author Resources, Prepare Your Manuscript and Submit Your Work, accessed 2026-10-10.

Physiological Reviews operates a multi-stage timeline that runs years from preproposal to publication.

• Day 0, preproposal requested by the editors: after the Editor, Deputy Editors and an Associate Editor agree a suggestion is strong, the outside author sends a preproposal naming the synthesis thesis, anchor references, and CV evidence.
• Week 1 to 12, queue for the biannual Associate Editor meeting: preproposals are discussed at the next biannual Associate Editor meeting.
• Week 12 to 26, invitation decision and issuance: the editorial team discusses preproposals at the meeting, the Editor makes final invitation decisions, and invitations issue across the weeks following the meeting.
• About 3 years on average, author writing window: invited authors take on average 3 years from invitation to submission, and ~30 percent of invitations are abandoned in this window.
• Day 1, full submission: the invited author submits the full manuscript through the APS submission system.
• Week 1, editorial triage: a less than 1-week desk-reject window for unsuitable invited submissions (scope drift, length-fit mismatch, recent-coverage collision that emerged during the writing window).
• Peer review: the 2021 editorial gave ~60 days to first decision, while the journal's About page now reports an average of 3.3 months; each article receives at least two reviews (APS journals generally obtain three external reviewers).
• Ahead-of-print publication: the journal's About page reports an average of 33.6 days to ahead-of-print publication, and full issue assignment follows.

Source: Hill et al. (PMC8238136) editorial process documentation and the journal's About page, accessed 2026-10-10. Only the 3-year average, the ~30 percent abandonment, the 3.3-month average to first decision and the 33.6-day average to ahead-of-print publication are published figures; the day and week ranges above are unofficial planning estimates.

The single most consequential decision before contacting the APS Editorial Office is whether Physiological Reviews is the right venue, and what the format-split redirect map looks like when invitation is not feasible.

The format-split redirect rule: short-and-timely opinion reviews route to Current Opinion in Physiology; specialty-organ comprehensive reviews route to AJP specialty journals; broader physiology-topic reviews with mixed-submission tolerance route to Comprehensive Physiology; top-tier organ-specialized reviews with commissioned-or-presubmission-inquiry models route to Nature Reviews journals.

APS Physiological Reviews editors evaluate preproposals on three operational signals:

1. Recent-coverage absence within ~5 years (our rule of thumb, not a published APS rule). Topics reviewed in Physiological Reviews, Annual Review of Physiology, or Comprehensive Physiology in the past 5 years face high bar. The editorial team checks for collision before deeper review.

1. Author authority in the central physiology subfield. The proposing author should be a recognized authority in the central subfield, not in an adjacent area. Hill et al. say proposals are discussed with particular emphasis on the excellence of the proposed author and recent contributions to the peer-reviewed literature.

1. Synthesis-with-thesis framing. The proposal must argue a position about how the physiology subfield should be organized, not just list what would be covered. Survey-not-synthesis framing routes to decline regardless of author authority.

Recent issues span cardiovascular physiology with mechanistic depth, renal physiology and integrative kidney function, respiratory and pulmonary physiology, neural physiology and brain-body integration, endocrine and metabolic physiology, exercise physiology with mechanistic translation, comparative and integrative physiology, autonomic and neural-control physiology, ion channel and signal-transduction physiology, and emerging interdisciplinary physiology topics including AI and computational modeling integration with experimental physiology.

For specific recent volumes, see Physiological Reviews on APS Journals.

Across Manusights submission reviews for comprehensive physiology-review preproposals targeting Physiological Reviews, three patterns generate the most consistent declines for outside-author preproposals. The preproposal, synthesis thesis, anchor references, author CV, outline, figure plan, Clinical Highlights, Table of Contents, and eventual manuscript need to prove that the topic belongs in Physiological Reviews rather than Annual Review of Physiology, Comprehensive Physiology, Current Opinion in Physiology, or an AJP specialty journal.

This guide tells you what Physiological Reviews editors look for before a preproposal becomes an invitation decision, and Manusights checks whether your paper passes the preproposal, synthesis-thesis, coverage-audit, author-authority, Clinical Highlights, Table of Contents, and figure-plan tests that official APS guidance cannot evaluate from a generic checklist. Paid Manusights reviews are covered by a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we never train on submitted manuscripts.

Comprehensive coverage without a physiology thesis

Across Manusights submission reviews for comprehensive physiology-review preproposals targeting Physiological Reviews, the most common decline pattern is a proposal that promises breadth but never states what the review will reorganize. The abstract may list cardiovascular, renal, respiratory, metabolic, neural, or exercise physiology coverage, but the synthesis thesis is missing. Physiological Reviews does not need another catalog of recent advances. It needs a review that changes how a field understands an integrative physiological problem.

The manuscript components should make that thesis visible before the preproposal is sent. The first paragraph should state the reorganizing claim. The outline should show argument flow rather than organ-system inventory. Anchor references should include the prior reviews being superseded and the primary studies that changed the field. Planned figures should be synthesis diagrams, not decorative pathway maps. Clinical Highlights should explain why the physiology matters without turning the paper into a clinical guideline.

The author CV should show sustained authority in the central subfield. If the work is narrower, Current Opinion in Physiology or an AJP specialty journal may fit. If it is broader than one coherent review can handle, Comprehensive Physiology may be better.

Check whether your Physiological Reviews preproposal states a synthesis thesis →

Recent-coverage collision hidden from the preproposal

Across Manusights submission reviews for comprehensive physiology-review preproposals targeting Physiological Reviews, the second recurring decline pattern is a topic that overlaps recent comprehensive coverage. Authors often check Physiological Reviews but not Annual Review of Physiology, Comprehensive Physiology, Pharmacological Reviews, Nature Reviews organ-specialty journals, or relevant AJP review content. The proposal then looks timely to the author but redundant to the editorial team.

The proposal should include an explicit coverage audit. The references should name the closest recent reviews and explain what has changed since publication. The outline should avoid reproducing an existing review's structure. Planned figures should show the new framework, not the familiar field diagram. The cover email should explain why Physiological Reviews owns the synthesis rather than Annual Review of Physiology or Comprehensive Physiology.

If the collision is real but the update is still useful, Current Opinion in Physiology can handle shorter timely reviews, AJP specialty journals can handle organ-focused reviews, and Nature Reviews Endocrinology, Cardiology, or Nephrology can fit a commissioned or presubmission-inquiry route.

Check whether your Physiological Reviews coverage audit avoids recent-review collision →

Author authority narrower than the review scope

Across Manusights submission reviews for comprehensive physiology-review preproposals targeting Physiological Reviews, a third recurring risk is a mismatch between the proposed scope and the author team's authority. The topic may require cardiovascular, renal, neural, metabolic, and clinical physiology synthesis, but the author CV is centered on one model system, assay, disease context, or organ specialty. Physiological Reviews can support multi-author teams, but the proposal must prove the team can synthesize fairly across the full field.

The package should resolve that before the preproposal reaches the biannual meeting. The CV evidence should map to the outline. Anchor references should include competing models, not only the proposing team's work. Figure plans should synthesize across systems rather than repackage one laboratory's model. Clinical Highlights should be written from the physiology, not from a single disease niche. The Table of Contents should make co-author responsibilities clear.

If the team is not yet broad enough, adding a recognized co-author, narrowing to an AJP specialty review, or redirecting to Current Opinion in Physiology can be more credible than asking Physiological Reviews to trust authority that the manuscript package does not demonstrate.

Check whether your Physiological Reviews author team matches the review scope →

Check whether your Physiological Reviews manuscript is submission-ready →

• Submission readiness checklist

• Journal fit checklist before submission

• Endocrine Reviews submission guide

• What peer reviewers do first

• Why manuscripts get rejected