Instructions for Authors Journal of Peptides

Check that the peptide is scientifically central to the manuscript. The journal considers work whose contribution is about the peptide — chemical, structural, analytical, biological, computational, pharmacological or translational — and the basis for that is set out on the Aims and Scope page.

Manuscripts must be original and not under consideration elsewhere. Where a specific preparation limit matters to you — a length, a count, or a format constraint for your article type — confirm it with the editorial office before you begin, so that you are working to the figure in force at the time of your submission.

• Research Article — a full report of original work, structured so that the question, the methods, the results and their interpretation can each be followed independently.
• Review Article (including systematic reviews) — a survey of a defined area of peptide science that makes the basis for its selection and its judgments explicit.
• Methods Article — work centered on a peptide synthesis, characterization, analytical or computational method.
• Data/Resource Article — work centered on a peptide dataset, collection or research resource.
• Short Communication — a concise report of a self-contained result, method or observation that is complete enough to be used by others.

Editorial and Perspective/Commentary are by invitation only. Choose the type that matches the work rather than its length. An editor may suggest a different type during screening.

Supply a title page as a separate file, carrying the title, all authors and affiliations, the corresponding author's contact details, and the declarations listed below.

The manuscript itself carries a precise title that reflects the principal result; a structured abstract giving the objective, the methods, the key results and the conclusion; keywords; and then the body of the paper.

• Introduction — the question and why it is open, without overstating what the work will settle.
• Materials and methods — enough procedural detail for the work to be repeated, including sources of reagents and the instruments used.
• Results — what was observed, separated from what it is taken to mean.
• Discussion — interpretation, limitations and boundary conditions stated plainly.
• Conclusion, acknowledgments, declarations and references.

Keep terminology stable across every file: a peptide named one way in the abstract should be named the same way in a figure legend and in the supplementary material.

Whatever the contribution, report the molecule well enough that a reader knows exactly what was studied.

• Give the full sequence in one-letter or three-letter code, stating the convention used, and identify any modification, protecting group, non-standard residue, cyclization or label explicitly.
• For synthesized peptides, describe the route, the resin and coupling chemistry where relevant, the cleavage and purification conditions, and the purity achieved with the method used to establish it.
• Report the analytical evidence of identity — mass spectrometric, chromatographic or spectroscopic — with the conditions under which it was obtained.
• For structural work, state the method, the conditions, and any accession identifier assigned on deposition.
• For biological, pharmacological or computational work, state the system, the controls and the replication, and for computational results the validation appropriate to the method.

Number figures and tables in the order they are first mentioned, and give each a legend that can be read on its own, including the units and the number of replicates. Supply figures at a resolution that stays legible at the size they will be printed, and keep lettering large enough to survive reduction.

Supplementary files carry material that supports the paper without belonging in it. Cite each one in the text and name it so a reader can tell what it contains.

Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement. Where a recognized repository exists for the data type, deposit there and report the accession identifier; the full expectation is set out in the Editorial Policies.

Cite the source that supports each claim, and prefer the primary report over a secondary account of it. Reference entries must be complete and internally consistent, carrying the authors, the title, the publication, the year, the volume and the pages, together with a DOI or a stable identifier where one exists, so that each entry can be resolved.

Check every citation against the source it names before submitting. A reference that does not support the sentence citing it is a substantive error, not a formatting one.

Every submission carries a statement of competing interests and of the funding that supported the work, including where there is nothing to declare, and confirmation that all listed authors meet the authorship conditions in the Editorial Policies.

Work involving human participants, human material or animals names the approving ethics committee and states that informed consent was obtained where it applies.

Any use of artificial-intelligence tools in producing the manuscript is disclosed, stating what was used and for what.

Where material is reproduced from another source, obtain permission from the rights holder and state it in the legend.

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. If you request double-blind review, prepare the reviewer manuscript accordingly.