On this page: Duplicate Publication | Permissions | Clinical Trials | Conflict of Interest | Communication with the Media | Communication Between Scientists | Pre- and Post- Submissions | Authorship | Changes to Authorship | Correspondence with the Journal | Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium | Plagiarism and Fabrication | Image Integrity and Standards | Reproducibility of Data Materials | Research Data Policy | Sequences, Structures and "Omics" | Gene Nomenclature | Human and Animal Experiments | Biosecurity Policy | Peer-Review | Anonymity and Confidentiality | Content Sharing | Selecting Peer Reviews | Appeals | Correction and Retraction Process 

Duplicate Publication

Papers must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. This rule applies to non-English language publications. Springer Nature allows and encourages prior publication on recognized community preprint servers for review by other scientists before formal submission to a journal. The details of the preprint server concerned and any accession numbers should be included in the cover letter accompanying manuscript submission. This policy does not extend to preprints available to the media or that are otherwise publicized outside the scientific community before or during the submission and consideration process.

Permissions

If a table or figure has been published before, the authors must obtain written permission to reproduce the material in both print and electronic formats from the copyright owner and submit it with the manuscript. This follows for quotes, illustrations and other materials taken from previously published works not in the public domain. The original source should be cited in the figure caption or table footnote. Color figures can be reproduced if necessary, but the authors will be expected to contribute towards the cost of publication.

Clinical Trials

As defined by the ICMJE, a clinical trial is any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention and comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome. A medical intervention is any intervention used to modify a health outcome and includes but is not limited to drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, and process-of-care changes. A trial must have at least one prospectively assigned concurrent control or comparison group in order to trigger the requirement for registration. Nonrandomized trials are not exempt from the registration requirement if they meet the above criteria.

When reporting experiments on human subjects, please indicate whether the procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) or with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (as revised in 1983). Include Institutional Review Board or Animal Care and Use Committee approvals

All clinical trials must be registered in a public registry prior to submission. Molecular Psychiatry follows the trials registration policy of the ICMJE (www.ICMJE.org) and considers only trials that have been appropriately registered before submission, regardless of when the trial closed to enrollment. Acceptable registries must meet the following ICMJE requirements:

• be publicly available, searchable, and open to all prospective registrants
• have a validation mechanism for registration data
• be managed by a not-for-profit organization

Examples of registries that meet these criteria include (1) the registry sponsored by the United States National Library of Medicine (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov); (2) the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry (http://www.controlled-trials.com); (3) the Cochrane Renal Group Registry (http://www.cochrane-renal.org/trialsubmissionform.php); (4) the National (United Kingdom) Research Register (http://www.updatesoftware.com/national/); and (5) the European Clinical Trials Database (http://eudract.emea.eu.int/). The trial registry number for eligible papers will be collected during the submission process.

Springer Nature endorses the toolkits and guidelines produced by the following bodies:

• Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/
• Good Publication Practice: http://www.gpp-guidelines.org/
• Medical Publishing Insights and Practices Initiative: http://www.mpip-initiative.org/PDF/MPIP_Authors_Submission_To  olkit.pdf

Back to top of page

Conflict of Interest

In the interests of transparency and to help readers form their own judgments of potential bias, authors must declare whether or not there are any competing financial interests in relation to the work described. This information must be included in the conflict of interest section of their manuscript. In cases where the authors declare a competing financial interest, a statement to that effect is published as part of the article. If no such conflict exists, the statement will simply read that the authors have nothing to disclose.

For the purposes of this statement, competing interests are defined as those of a financial nature that, through their potential influence on behavior or content, or from perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity or perceived value of a publication. They can include any of the following:

• Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for attending symposia, and other expenses) by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication. The role of the funding body in the design of the study, collection and analysis of data and decision to publish should be stated.
• Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
• Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication.

It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest becomes significant, but note that many US universities require faculty members to disclose interests exceeding $10,000 or 5% equity in a company. Any such figure is arbitrary, so we offer as one possible practical alternative guideline: "Declare all interests that could embarrass you were they to become publicly known after your work was published." We do not consider diversified mutual funds or investment trusts to constitute a competing financial interest.

The statement must contain an explicit and unambiguous statement describing any potential conflict of interest, or lack thereof, for any of the authors as it relates to the subject of the report. Examples include "Dr. Smith receives compensation as a consultant for XYZ Company", "Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith have financial holdings in ABC Company", or "Dr. Jones owns a patent on the diagnostic device described in this report". These statements must be included in the manuscript under the heading Conflict of Interest. The Conflict of Interest disclosure appears in the cover letter, in the manuscript submission process and before the References section in the manuscript.

Potential conflicts of interest should be provided for all authors, including compensation for professional services. Neither the precise amount received from each entity nor the aggregate income from these sources needs to be provided. Professional services include any activities for which the individual is, has been, or will be compensated with cash, royalties, fees, stock or stock options in exchange for work performed, advice or counsel provided, or for other services related to the author's professional knowledge and skills. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to, the identification of organizations from which the author received contracts or in which he or she holds an equity stake if professional services were provided in conjunction with the transaction.

Examples of declarations are:

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest.

Dr Caron's work has been funded by the NIH. He has received compensation as a member of the scientific advisory board of Acadia Pharmaceutical and owns stock in the company. He also has consulted for Lundbeck and received compensation. Dr Rothman and Dr Jensen declare no potential conflict of interest.

Communication with the Media

Material submitted must not be discussed with the media. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken. If a paper is particularly newsworthy, the press release will be sent to our list of journalists in advance of publication with an embargo that forbids any coverage of the manuscript, or the findings of the manuscript, until the time and date clearly stated. Authors whose papers are scheduled for publication may also arrange their own publicity (for instance through their institution's press offices), but they must strictly adhere to our press embargo and are advised to coordinate their own publicity with our press office.

Communication Between Scientists

We do not wish to hinder communication between scientists. We ask you to communicate with other researchers as much as you wish, whether on a recognized community preprint server, by discussion at scientific meetings or by online collaborative sites such as wikis, but we do not encourage premature publication by discussion with the press (beyond a formal presentation, if at a conference).

Back to top of page

Pre- and Post- Submissions

Authors are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a recognized preprint server (such as ArXiv) at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process).

For subscribed content, the accepted version of the manuscript, following the review process, may only be posted 6 months after the paper is published in a Springer Nature journal. A publication reference and URL to the published version on the journal website must be provided on the first page of the post-print. The published version - copyedited and in the individual Springer Nature journal format - may not be posted on any website or preprint server.

For open access content published under a creative commons license, authors can replace the submitted version with the final published version at publication as long as a publication reference and URL to the published version on the journal website are provided.

Authorship

According to the International Committee on Medical Journal Ethics (ICMJE), an author is defined as one who has made substantive intellectual contribution to the development of a manuscript. Molecular Psychiatry adheres to the ICMJE guidelines, which state that authorship credit should be based on:

1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. Final approval of the version to be published.

Additional contributors to the submitted work should appear in the Acknowledgments.

A manuscript will be considered for publication on the understanding that:

1. All named authors have agreed to its submission
2. It is not currently being considered for publication by another journal
3. If the paper is accepted it will not subsequently be published in the same or similar form in any language without the consent of publishers

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors, or the deletion or addition of authors, needs to be approved by a signed letter from every author. Moreover, articles found to have been "ghost authored" (e.g., written by unacknowledged freelance writers) will be considered to have violated Molecular Psychiatry’s authorship policy.

Changes to Authorship

It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that the author list is correct, both in the manuscript file uploaded and the online submission form. Any changes to an author list, including the removal or addition of any authors, between initial submission and acceptance will require written agreement from all authors should the manuscript be considered for publication. New authors must also confirm that they fully comply with the journal's authorship requirements. Changes to authorship (addition or removal) will not be allowed once the manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Back to top of page

Correspondence with the Journal

One author is designated the contact author for matters arising from the manuscript (materials requests, technical comments and so on). It is this author's responsibility to inform all co-authors of matters arising and to ensure such matters are dealt with promptly. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, its order agreed upon by all authors, and are aware that the manuscript was submitted. After acceptance for publication, proofs are e-mailed to this corresponding author who should circulate the proof to all co-authors and coordinate corrections among them.

Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

MP is a member of the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC). The purpose of the NPRC is to decrease the time and effort involved in the peer review process, and reduce the burden placed on reviewers. Authors of papers that have been rejected after review may request that MP transfer reviews to other member journals, and or request member journals transfer requests to MP.

Authors can request to have reviews transferred by contacting MP’s editorial office. For a complete list of member journals, please see the list on the NPRC website.

Plagiarism and Fabrication

Plagiarism is when an author attempts to pass off someone else's work as his or her own. Duplicate publication, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. Minor plagiarism without dishonest intent is relatively frequent, for example, when an author reuses parts of an introduction from an earlier paper.

Springer Nature Journals use CrossCheck, a plagiarism detection software tool, to identify instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. CrossCheck is a multi-publisher initiative to screen published and submitted content for originality. To find out more about CrossCheck visit www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html.

If a case of plagiarism comes to light after a paper is published, the Journal will conduct a preliminary investigation, utilizing the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics. If plagiarism is proven, the Journal will contact the author's institute and funding agencies as appropriate. The paper containing the plagiarism may also be formally retracted or subject to correction.

Back to top of page

Image Integrity and Standards

Images submitted with a manuscript for review should be minimally processed (for instance, to add arrows to a micrograph). Authors should retain their unprocessed data and metadata files, as editors may request them to aid in manuscript evaluation. If unprocessed data is unavailable, manuscript evaluation may be stalled until the issue is resolved.

A certain degree of image processing is acceptable for publication (and for some experiments, fields and techniques is unavoidable), but the final image must correctly represent the original data and conform to community standards. The guidelines below will aid in accurate data presentation at the image processing level:

• Authors should list all image acquisition tools and image processing software packages used. Authors should document key image-gathering settings and processing manipulations in the Methods section.
• Images gathered at different times or from different locations should not be combined into a single image, unless it is stated that the resultant image is a product of time-averaged data or a time-lapse sequence. If juxtaposing images is essential, the borders should be clearly demarcated in the figure and described in the legend.
• Touch-up tools, such as cloning and healing tools in Photoshop, or any feature that deliberately obscures manipulations, is to be avoided.
• Processing (such as changing brightness and contrast) is appropriate only when it is applied equally across the entire image and is applied equally to controls. Contrast should not be adjusted so that data disappears. Excessive manipulations, such as processing to emphasize one region in the image at the expense of others (for example, through the use of a biased choice of threshold settings), is inappropriate, as is emphasizing experimental data relative to the control.

For gels and blots, positive and negative controls, as well as molecular size markers, should be included on each gel and blot – either in the main figure or an expanded data supplementary figure. The display of cropped gels and blots in the main paper is encouraged if it improves the clarity and conciseness of the presentation. In such cases, the cropping must be mentioned in the figure legend.

• Vertically sliced gels that juxtapose lanes that were not contiguous in the experiment must have a clear separation or a black line delineating the boundary between the gels.
• Cropped gels in the paper must retain important bands.
• Cropped blots in the body of the paper should retain at least six band widths above and below the band.
• High-contrast gels and blots are discouraged, as overexposure may mask additional bands. Authors should strive for exposures with gray backgrounds. Immunoblots should be surrounded by a black line to indicate the borders of the blot, if the background is faint.
• For quantitative comparisons, appropriate reagents, controls and imaging methods with linear signal ranges should be used.

Microscopy adjustments should be applied to the entire image. Threshold manipulation, expansion or contraction of signal ranges and the altering of high signals should be avoided. If ‘Pseudo-coloring’ and nonlinear adjustment (for example ‘gamma changes’) are used, this must be disclosed. Adjustments of individual color channels are sometimes necessary on ‘merged’ images, but this should be noted in the figure legend. We encourage inclusion of the following with the final revised version of the manuscript for publication:

• In the Methods section, specify the type of equipment (microscopes/objective lenses, cameras, detectors, filter model and batch number) and acquisition software used. Although we appreciate that there is some variation between instruments, equipment settings for critical measurements should also be listed.
• The display lookup table (LUT) and the quantitative map between the LUT and the bitmap should be provided, especially when rainbow pseudocolor is used. It should be stated if the LUT is linear and covers the full range of the data.
• Processing software should be named and manipulations indicated (such as type of deconvolution, three-dimensional reconstructions, surface and volume rendering, 'gamma changes', filtering, thresholding and projection).
• Authors should state the measured resolution at which an image was acquired and any downstream processing or averaging that enhances the resolution of the image.

Reproducibility of Data and Materials

Molecular Psychiatry requires authors of papers that are sent for external review to include in their manuscripts relevant details about several elements of experimental and analytical design. This initiative aims to improve the transparency of reporting and the reproducibility of published results, focusing on elements of methodological information that are frequently poorly reported. Authors being asked to resubmit a manuscript will be asked to confirm that these elements are included by filling out a checklist that will be made available to the editor and reviewers.

Research Data Policy

We strongly encourage that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible. Where one does not exist, the information must be made available to referees at submission and to readers promptly upon request. Any restrictions on material availability or other relevant information must be disclosed in the manuscript’s Methods section and should include details of how materials and information may be obtained. Please see the journal's guidelines on Research Data policy here.

The Springer Nature Research Data Service can help you to organize and curate your data to the highest quality and present it in a useful way that makes it easier for other researchers to understand and learn from, and can provide support and advice on any aspect of research data sharing that you are unsure about.

Back to top of page

Sequences, Structures and “Omics”

Papers reporting protein or DNA sequences and molecular structures will not be accepted without an accession number to Genbank/EMBL/DDBJ, Protein DataBank, SWISS-PROT or other publicly available database in general use in the field that gives free access to researchers from the date of publication.

Authors of papers describing structures of biological macromolecules must provide experimental data upon the request of Editor if they are not already freely accessible in a publicly available database such as Protein DataBank,  Nucleic Acids Database or Biological Magnetic Resonance Databank.

Gene Nomenclature

Authors should use approved nomenclature for gene symbols, and use symbols rather than italicized full names (Ttn, not titin). Please consult the appropriate nomenclature databases for correct gene names and symbols. Approved human gene symbols are provided by HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC), www.genenames.org. Approved mouse symbols are provided by The Jackson Laboratory, www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen. For proposed gene names that are not already approved, please submit the gene symbols to the appropriate nomenclature committees as soon as possible, as these must be deposited and approved before publication of an article.

Avoid listing multiple names of genes (or proteins) separated by a slash, as in 'Oct4/Pou5f1', as this is ambiguous (it could mean a ratio, a complex, alternative names or different subunits). Use one name throughout and include the other at first mention: 'Oct4 (also known as Pou5f1)'

Bioethics

Human and Other Animal Experiments

For primary research manuscripts reporting experiments on live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The manuscript must include in the Supplementary Information (methods) section (or, if brief, within of the print/online article at an appropriate place), a statement identifying the institutional and/or licensing committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details regarding animal welfare, patient anonymity, drug side effects and informed consent.

For experiments involving human subjects, authors must identify the committee approving the experiments, and include with their submission a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Biosecurity Policy

The Editor may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.

Back to top of page

Peer-Review

Manuscripts sent out for peer review are evaluated by at least one independent reviewer (often two or more). Authors may recommend up to 6 reviewers, but they must be from different institutions than the author and with whom the authors have not collaborated or co-authored with in the last 5 years. All recommendations are considered, but it is at the Editor’s discretion their choice of reviewers. To expedite the review process, only papers that seem most likely to meet editorial criteria are sent for external review. Papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review.

The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

1. Accept, with or without editorial revisions. Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.
2. Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission.
3. Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.

Molecular Psychiatry is a member of the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC). The purpose of the NPRC is to decrease the time and effort involved in the peer review process, and reduces the burden placed on reviewers. Authors of papers that have been rejected after review may request that Molecular Psychiatry transfer reviews to other member journals, and or request member journals transfer requests to Molecular Psychiatry.

Authors can request to have reviews transferred by contacting the journal’s editorial office. For a complete list of member journals, please see the list on the NPRC website.

Anonymity and Confidentiality

All details about submitted manuscripts are kept confidential and no comments are issued to outside parties or organizations about manuscripts under consideration or if they are rejected. Editors are restricted to making public comments on a published article’s content and their evaluation.

We do not release reviewers' identities to authors, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified.

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the editor; if this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after the reviewer has revealed their identity. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or try to determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.

Upon accepting an invitation to evaluate a manuscript, reviewers must keep the manuscript and associated data confidential, and not redistribute them without the journal’s permission. If a reviewer asks a colleague to assist in assessing a manuscript, confidentiality must be ensured and their names must be provided to the journal with the final report.

Content Sharing

In order to aid the dissemination of research swiftly and legally to the broader community, we are providing all authors with the ability to generate a unique shareable link that will allow anyone to read the published article. If you have selected an Open Access option for your paper, or where an individual can view content via a personal or institutional subscription, recipients of the link will also be able to download and print the PDF.

As soon as your article is published, you can generate your shareable link by entering the DOI of your article here:  http://authors.springernature.com/share

We encourage you to forward this link to your co-authors, as sharing your paper is a great way to improve the visibility of your work. There are no restrictions on the number of people you may share this link with, how many times they can view the linked article or where you can post the link online.

More information on Springer Nature’s commitment to content sharing is available here.

Back to top of page

Selecting Peer Reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, based on expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. Authors may recommend up to 6 reviewers, but they must be from different institutions than the author and with whom the authors have not collaborated or co-authored with in the last 5 years. A reviewer may decline the invitation to evaluate a manuscript where there is a perceived conflict of interest (financial or otherwise).

Appeals

If Molecular Psychiatry declines to publish a paper and does not suggest resubmission, authors are strongly advised to submit their paper for publication elsewhere. Appeal requests are necessarily subordinate to normal workflow and therefore the process may be quite lengthy.

If an author wishes to appeal the editor’s decision, a request must be made by emailing the editorial office and must strictly confine itself to the scientific case for publication. Due to high volume, such enquiries sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief will not receive a response.

Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the journal is convinced that the original decision was a serious error (for example, if technical comments made by the reviewers are factually wrong), as opposed to an editorial judgment for which there may be strong evidence on either side. Therefore, after careful consideration of the authors' points, most appeals are rejected.

Correction and Retraction Process

We recognize our responsibility to correct errors. Content published online is final and cannot be amended. Please note the following policy for making corrections to peer reviewed content:

• Correction. Notification of an important error made by the journal or by the author(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the authors, or of the journal.
• Retraction. Notification of invalid results. All co­authors must sign a retraction specifying the error and stating briefly how the conclusions are affected

Decisions about corrections are made by the Editor (sometimes with peer-reviewers' advice) and this sometimes involves author consultation. Requests to make corrections that do not affect the paper in a significant way or impair the reader's understanding of the contribution (a spelling mistake or grammatical error, for example) are not considered.

In cases where co-authors disagree about a correction, the editors will take advice from independent peer-reviewers. Corrections to published articles should be requested by submitting a request to the editorial office.

Back to top of page