Ageing Research Reviews Submission Guide: Requirements & Editorial Fit

Ageing Research Reviews accepts only invited and unsolicited comprehensive review articles. No systematic reviews. No meta-analyses as standalone pieces. No mini-reviews under 8,000 words.

Article types accepted:

• Comprehensive reviews (8,000-15,000 words)
• Thematic reviews focusing on specific aging pathways
• Cross-species comparative reviews
• Mechanistic reviews linking molecular processes to age-related phenotypes

The 2026 editorial priorities favor reviews that:

Connect molecular mechanisms to functional outcomes. Don't just catalog what happens during aging. Explain how it happens and why it matters for healthspan.

Bridge basic research and translational potential. Editors want reviews that help researchers identify therapeutic targets, not just academic summaries.

Integrate recent advances with established knowledge. Your review should update the field, not just repeat what's already known.

Hot topics for 2026 submissions:

• Cellular reprogramming and aging reversal
• Epigenetic clocks and biological age measurement
• Senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) modulation
• Mitochondrial dysfunction in age-related diseases
• Autophagy and proteostasis in longevity
• Inflammaging and immune system aging

Cold topics (avoid):

• General overviews without mechanistic depth
• Reviews covering topics already covered in the past 2 years
• Clinical geriatrics without molecular focus
• Aging research methods without new insights

The journal publishes about 17 reviews per monthly issue. Most successful submissions come from established aging researchers, but the journal doesn't explicitly require senior authorship. They care more about comprehensive coverage and mechanistic insight than author reputation.

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%. Most desk rejections happen because the submission doesn't match journal scope or lacks sufficient mechanistic depth.

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.