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

Source: Physiological Reviews on APS Journals, Hill et al. PMC8238136 editorial process documentation, accessed May 2026.

Physiological Reviews operates an invitation-leaning model. Outside authors cannot upload manuscripts directly. The standard path begins by sending a preproposal to the APS Editorial Office that names the synthesis thesis, includes 5 to 10 anchor references, and provides proposing-author CV evidence of sustained authority in the central physiology subfield. The preproposal is reviewed by the Editor plus Deputy Editors plus at least one Associate Editor.

The editorial team discusses preproposals at biannual Associate Editor meetings and decides invitations there. The Editor issues invitations for accepted preproposals; the author then enters a writing window of 1 to 3 years (~3-year average; ~30 percent of invitations are abandoned). The full submission goes through journal submission portal (eJournalPress) once the manuscript is complete.

Editorial triage runs a less than 1-week desk-reject window for unsuitable invited submissions, followed by peer review (~60 days) and Articles in Press publication within 2 weeks of acceptance.

Total manuscript length expected: 10000 to 25000 words across 25 to 50 printed pages, with 200 to 500+ references and typically 8 figures or more. Preproposals are short: approximately 500 words plus the anchor reference list and a 200-word author bio summarizing central-subfield authority.

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, accessed May 2026.

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

Day 0: Preproposal to APS Editorial Office

Outside author sends 1-to-2-paragraph preproposal naming synthesis thesis, anchor references, and CV evidence.

Week 1 to 12: Queue for biannual Associate Editor meeting

The Editorial Office routes preproposals to the next biannual Associate Editor meeting. Editor plus Deputy Editors plus at least one Associate Editor review.

Week 12 to 26: Invitation decision and issuance

The Editorial team discusses preproposals at the meeting; the Editor makes final invitation decisions. Invitations issue across weeks following the meeting.

Year 1 to 3: Author writing window

Invited authors write across 1 to 3 years (~3-year average). ~30 percent of invitations are abandoned in this window.

Day 1: Full submission via Prv author instructions

Invited author submits the full manuscript via the eJournalPress portal at journal submission portal.

Week 1: Editorial triage

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).

Week 2 to 9: Peer review (~60 days)

Typically 2 to 3 reviewers per manuscript.

Week 16 to 22: Articles in Press publication

Accepted manuscripts publish as Articles in Press within 2 weeks of acceptance. Full issue assignment follows.

Source: Hill et al. (PMC8238136) editorial process documentation, accessed May 2026.

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. 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. Editorial process runs informal authority checks via citation record and conference visibility.

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 →

• Is Physiological Reviews a good journal?

• Physiological Reviews journal overview

• Annual Review of Physiology Submission Guide

• Comprehensive Physiology Submission Guide

• Pharmacological Reviews Submission Guide