Content Types

A complete reference for authors and contributors covering submission types, formats, structures, peer review policies, and editorial standards.

Use this guide to choose the right submission type. Scan each card for format limits and review policy, then expand any type for full structure and submission guidance.

Primary Research

Original research articles presenting novel findings and significant advances in medicine and biomedical sciences

3 types
Open Submission Research

Article

Full-length original research papers presenting comprehensive studies with significant findings. Articles are the primary vehicle for publishing novel research at RevisX.

Up to 5000 Words
Up to 8 Figures
Up to 60 References
Double-blind Peer review
Word limit excludes abstract, methods, references, and figure legends Abstract: up to 300 words, unstructured Supplementary: permitted
View full details
When to choose this type

Choose this type for complete, multi-experiment studies that present substantial new findings requiring full exposition of methods, results, and discussion. Articles are the primary vehicle for publishing novel research at RevisX and are suitable when your findings cannot be adequately presented in a shorter format.

Article structure
  • Introduction (no heading) — establish context, knowledge gap, and study aims
  • Results — organised by topical subheadings; present data without interpretation
  • Discussion (no subheadings) — interpret findings, discuss limitations, and future directions
  • Online Methods — organised by topical subheadings; full reproducible methodological detail
  • References
  • Figure legends (not counted toward word limit)
  • Supplementary information (optional, linked online)
Peer review

Full double-blind peer review by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. Authors receive structured review reports and have the opportunity to revise and respond.

Submission process

Submit via the RevisX online submission portal. Prepare a cover letter outlining the significance of your findings and confirming the work has not been published or submitted elsewhere. All co-authors must approve the final submission.

Note: Data availability and ethics statements are mandatory. All primary data must be deposited in an appropriate public repository prior to acceptance.
Open Submission Research

Letter

Short, focused reports of outstanding novel findings of exceptional significance. Letters present complete, reproducible studies despite their brevity.

Up to 2,000 Words
Up to 4 Figures
Up to 30 References
Double-blind Peer review
Supplementary: permitted for extended methods
View full details
When to choose this type

Choose Letters when your findings are groundbreaking and self-contained — results that can be communicated concisely without requiring full methodological exposition. Letters must present complete, reproducible studies despite their brevity. The bar for significance is high; do not use this format to report preliminary findings.

Article structure
  • No formal section headings — written as flowing, concise prose
  • Brief context-setting introduction (1–2 paragraphs)
  • Results and key methods woven together in narrative
  • Short concluding paragraph placing findings in broader context
  • Methods detail may be placed in supplementary information
Peer review

Full peer review. Due to the condensed format, reviewers specifically assess whether the study is complete and reproducible within the stated word limit.

Submission process

Submit via the RevisX online submission portal. Your cover letter must explicitly argue why the findings meet the high-significance threshold for a Letter. Include a one-sentence summary of the key finding suitable for a press release.

Open Submission Research

Brief Communication

Concise reports of research findings with broad interest across the biomedical community. Appropriate for resource papers, tool descriptions, or tightly focused experimental studies.

Up to 1,500 Words
Up to 3 Figures
Up to 20 References
Yes Peer review
Supplementary: strongly recommended for full methods
View full details
When to choose this type

Suitable for reporting a single important finding or methodological advance that is complete and significant, but does not require the full scope of an Article. Brief Communications are appropriate for resource papers, tool descriptions, or tightly focused experimental studies with clear broad relevance.

Article structure
  • Short introduction establishing context and significance (no heading)
  • Results section with 1–2 subheadings
  • Brief discussion or conclusion integrated within Results or as a short final paragraph
  • Methods — condensed, with full detail in supplementary if necessary
Peer review

Peer reviewed. Reviewers assess both scientific quality and the appropriateness of the Brief Communication format for the content presented.

Submission process

Submit via the RevisX online submission portal. Indicate in your cover letter why the Brief Communication format is appropriate, and confirm that full methodological detail is available in supplementary information.

Clinical Sciences

Clinically focused reports documenting notable patient cases and patient series with educational or scientific value

2 types
Open Submission Clinical

Case Report

Detailed reports of individual patient cases that present unusual findings, novel diagnoses or treatments, unexpected clinical outcomes, or unique educational value.

Up to 2,000 Words
Up to 4 Figures
Up to 20 References
Yes Peer review
Word limit excludes abstract and references Abstract: up to 200 words, structured Supplementary: permitted
View full details
When to choose this type

Case Reports are appropriate when a single patient case illustrates an important clinical lesson — a rare or novel disease presentation, an unexpected adverse event or therapeutic response, a diagnostic challenge with instructive resolution, or a finding that prompts new hypotheses. The case must offer value beyond the individual patient and contribute meaningfully to the medical literature.

Article structure
  • Abstract — structured summary (Background, Case Presentation, Conclusions)
  • Introduction — brief context establishing why the case is noteworthy
  • Case Presentation — detailed chronological account of clinical findings, diagnostics, interventions, and outcomes
  • Discussion — interpretation, comparison with existing literature, and clinical implications
  • Conclusions — key learning points and take-home messages
  • References
Peer review

Peer reviewed by clinicians and subject-matter experts. Reviewers assess clinical accuracy, educational value, and the strength of the discussion in contextualising the case.

Submission process

Submit via the RevisX online submission portal. Your cover letter should summarise the case and explain why it merits publication. Written informed patient consent for publication must be obtained and included with the submission.

Note: Patient consent for publication is mandatory. All identifying information must be removed or anonymised unless explicit consent for identifiable publication has been obtained. Ethics approval or institutional review board waiver should be documented.
Open Submission Clinical

Case Series

Reports describing a group of patients with similar diagnoses, treatments, or outcomes, providing observational evidence and identifying clinical patterns.

Up to 3,000 Words
Up to 6 Figures
Up to 30 References
Yes Peer review
Word limit excludes abstract and references Abstract: up to 250 words, structured Supplementary: permitted
View full details
When to choose this type

Case Series are appropriate when multiple patients share a notable clinical pattern that warrants systematic description — a cluster of rare presentations, a cohort treated with a novel intervention, or a group illustrating the spectrum of a condition. They provide stronger observational evidence than individual case reports and can generate hypotheses for future controlled studies.

Article structure
  • Abstract — structured summary (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions)
  • Introduction — clinical context and rationale for the series
  • Methods — patient selection criteria, data collection, and ethical approvals
  • Results — demographic and clinical data presented systematically, often in tabular form
  • Discussion — patterns identified, comparison with literature, limitations, and clinical implications
  • Conclusions — summary of findings and implications for practice or research
  • References
Peer review

Peer reviewed. Reviewers evaluate the rigour of case selection, consistency of data presentation, and the validity of conclusions drawn from the observational evidence.

Submission process

Submit via the RevisX online submission portal. Include details of ethics approval and patient consent procedures in your cover letter. Clearly state the inclusion criteria and time period for the series.

Note: Ethics approval or institutional review board approval is required. Patient consent for publication must be obtained for all individuals in the series. Aggregate or de-identified data presentation is expected unless explicit consent for identifiable information has been provided.

Reviews and Perspectives

Expert analysis, comprehensive overviews, and forward-looking commentary on research fields

3 types
Open Submission Review

Review

Comprehensive, authoritative overviews of specific topics written by leading experts. Reviews synthesize current understanding and provide new conceptual frameworks.

Up to 4,000 Words
Up to 6 Figures
Up to 150 References
Yes Peer review
Word limit excludes abstract and references
View full details
When to choose this type

Reviews are appropriate when a topic has accumulated sufficient primary literature to warrant synthesis and critical evaluation. They should not merely summarise existing work but provide a new conceptual framework, resolve apparent contradictions, or clearly define open questions. Reviews are often solicited by editors but unsolicited proposals are considered.

Article structure
  • Abstract — concise summary of the scope and key conclusions
  • Introduction — establish the importance of the topic and the review's scope
  • Thematic sections with subheadings — logically organised coverage of the field
  • Conclusions and outlook — synthesise key messages and identify future research directions
  • References
  • Boxes (optional) — for definitions, case studies, or key concepts
Peer review

Peer reviewed by subject-matter experts. Reviews are assessed for balance, accuracy, and whether they advance understanding beyond existing literature.

Submission process

Authors are encouraged to contact the editors with a proposal (title, outline, author list) before preparing a full manuscript. Full submissions are accepted but proposals help avoid duplication with in-preparation commissioned reviews.

Note: Authors should declare any conflicts of interest, particularly if they have primary research publications in the area being reviewed.
Open Submission Opinion

Perspective

Forward-looking articles discussing emerging directions, methodological advances, or implications of recent findings. Perspectives argue a specific intellectual position.

Up to 2,500 Words
Up to 4 Figures
Up to 50 References
Yes Peer review
View full details
When to choose this type

Perspectives are opinion-driven pieces offering an expert's informed viewpoint on where a field is heading, what a recent advance means, or why a methodological shift matters. Unlike Reviews, they do not aim to be comprehensive — they argue a specific intellectual position. Perspectives are ideal following landmark publications, technology breakthroughs, or paradigm shifts.

Article structure
  • No rigid structure required — written as argued essay prose
  • Opening framing: the question or development being addressed
  • Development of the author's perspective supported by evidence
  • Implications and future directions
  • Concluding statement
Peer review

Peer reviewed, with particular attention to the strength of the argument, accuracy of evidence cited, and fairness to alternative views.

Submission process

Submit via the RevisX portal. Perspectives benefit from a short author note explaining what motivated the piece. Timeliness is important — link your proposal to recent publications or events where possible.

Open Submission Review

Progress

Articles tracking recent advances in a specific research area and their implications for the field, focusing on developments in the past 12–24 months.

Up to 3,000 Words
Up to 5 Figures
Up to 80 References
Yes Peer review
Majority of references from the past 3 years
View full details
When to choose this type

Progress articles suit rapidly evolving fields where significant developments have accumulated in the past 12–24 months. They differ from Reviews by focusing on recent momentum rather than comprehensive historical coverage, and from Perspectives by being evidence-based summaries rather than opinion pieces. Ideal for highlighting an emerging subfield or a cluster of related breakthroughs.

Article structure
  • Introduction — brief context for the field and rationale for the Progress article
  • Thematic sections with subheadings covering recent key advances
  • Current challenges and open questions
  • Outlook — where the field is heading
Peer review

Peer reviewed.

Submission process

Contact the editors with a proposal before submitting. Specify the time window of advances covered and confirm the topic has not been recently covered by a similar article in RevisX.

Commentary and Opinion

Expert commentary and open discussion on research findings, policy, ethics, and scientific practice

2 types
Open Submission Opinion

Comment

Opinion pieces addressing topical issues in science, research policy, ethics, and practice. Comments take a clear position and argue it concisely.

Up to 1,200 Words
Up to 1 Figure
Up to 10 References
Editorial Peer review
External review at editor discretion
View full details
When to choose this type

Comments provide a platform for experts to weigh in on timely, debated, or underexplored issues in science and medicine. They may respond to published work, policy changes, emerging ethical questions, or broader trends. Comments are not literature reviews; they take a clear position and argue it concisely.

Article structure
  • No required headings — written as concise opinion essay
  • Strong opening statement positioning the author's view
  • Argument supported by evidence and reasoning
  • Acknowledgement of counterarguments where appropriate
  • Clear concluding recommendation or call to action
Peer review

Editorial review for accuracy, balance, and relevance. External peer review at editor's discretion, particularly for pieces making contested empirical claims.

Submission process

Submit via the portal or by direct email to the editors for time-sensitive topics. Clearly declare any conflicts of interest. Comments on specific published articles should be submitted promptly after the relevant publication.

Open Submission Discussion

Correspondence

Letters to the editor enabling scientific discussion and clarification of published work. Original authors are given the opportunity to reply.

Up to 800 Words
Up to 1 Figure
Up to 5 References
Editorial Peer review
Shown to original authors prior to publication
View full details
When to choose this type

Correspondence is for responses to articles published in RevisX — to raise methodological concerns, offer alternative interpretations, provide additional data, or correct errors. It is not a venue for unsolicited opinion (see Comment) or new research findings. Original authors of the cited work will be given the opportunity to reply.

Article structure
  • Opening sentence identifying the article being discussed (include DOI)
  • Specific, clearly articulated point of discussion or concern
  • Supporting evidence or reasoning
  • Optional: suggested resolution or question for the authors
Peer review

Editorial review. Correspondence is shared with the original authors for response before publication. Both the letter and any author reply are published together.

Submission process

Submit within 3 months of the original article's publication date. Include the full citation and DOI of the article you are responding to. Correspondence submitted after this window will be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

Note: Correspondence raising serious concerns about data integrity or research conduct will be handled under RevisX's dedicated research integrity process, which may involve additional steps.

News and Features

Science journalism and in-depth feature writing covering biomedical research, trends, and the scientific community

2 types
Internal Journalism

News

Science news articles covering recent discoveries, developments, and events in biomedical sciences. Produced by the RevisX editorial and journalism team.

Up to 1,200 Words
Up to 2 images Figures
Inline citations References
Internal Review
Internal editorial content
View full details
When to choose this type

News articles are produced by the RevisX editorial and journalism team to report on significant findings — both from RevisX publications and the wider field — in an accessible, timely manner. They contextualise advances for a broad scientific readership and do not present original data.

Article structure
  • Headline and standfirst (sub-headline)
  • News lead — the key finding or development in 1–2 sentences
  • Context and background
  • Expert commentary (quoted sources)
  • Implications and what happens next
Peer review

Fact-checked and reviewed internally by a senior editor. External experts may be consulted for accuracy on complex topics.

Submission process

Produced by the RevisX team. Not open for external submission. Researchers who believe their work merits a News piece may contact the editors to discuss.

By Invitation Journalism

Feature

In-depth articles exploring scientific topics, research trends, and issues facing the scientific community. Primarily written by the RevisX team; occasionally commissioned from external writers.

Up to 2,000 Words
Up to 3 images Figures
Inline or short References
Internal Review
Internal or by invitation
View full details
When to choose this type

Features go beyond news reporting to explore a topic in depth — the people, context, debates, and significance behind major developments. They may profile a research area, investigate a controversy, or examine a structural issue in science. Primarily written by the RevisX team; occasionally commissioned from external science writers or researchers with demonstrated writing ability.

Article structure
  • Compelling opening scene or anecdote
  • Thematic narrative sections — no rigid structure required
  • Multiple expert voices and perspectives woven throughout
  • Concluding reflection or open question
Peer review

Fact-checked and reviewed by a senior editor. Commissioned external features undergo additional editorial review for accuracy and balance.

Submission process

Not open for unsolicited submission. External contributors interested in proposing a Feature should contact the editors with a short pitch (200–300 words) and relevant writing samples. Pitches are reviewed on a rolling basis.

Special Content

Editorial content and curated pieces reflecting the journal's voice, positions, and highlights

3 types
Internal / By Invitation Editorial

Editorial

Journal position statements and commentary on research policy, ethics, and practice. Editorials represent the voice of RevisX on matters important to the research community.

Up to 1,200 Words
None Figures
Not required References
Internal Review
Internal or by invitation only
View full details
When to choose this type

Editorials represent the voice of RevisX on matters important to the research community — policy developments, ethical standards, publishing practices, and responses to major events. Most are written by RevisX editors. On significant occasions, the journal invites a leading expert to contribute an Editorial representing an authoritative external perspective. Invited Editorials are clearly labelled as such.

Article structure
  • No formal sections — written as authoritative, concise essay
  • Clear opening statement of the issue or position
  • Development of the argument or stance
  • Concluding statement or call to action
Peer review

Internal editorial review. Invited Editorials are reviewed by a senior RevisX editor for accuracy, tone, and alignment with journal standards before publication.

Submission process

Not open for unsolicited submission. Researchers who wish to be considered as an invited Editorial contributor may contact the editors. The final decision on invitation rests with the editorial team.

Internal Summary

RevisX Briefing

Concise, accessible summaries of important research developments and journal highlights. Produced by the editorial team as a reader service.

Up to 800 Words
Up to 1 image Figure
Source link only References
Internal Review
Internal editorial content only
View full details
When to choose this type

RevisX Briefings distil the key messages of significant publications — from RevisX itself or the wider field — for a broad audience. They are produced by the editorial team as a reader service and are not original research or opinion content. Briefings may appear as standalone items or as part of a curated digest.

Article structure
  • One-line headline capturing the key finding
  • 2–3 sentence summary of the study or development
  • 1–2 sentences on implications or context
  • Link to the original source
Peer review

Internal editorial review and fact-check only.

Submission process

Produced exclusively by the RevisX editorial team. Not open for external submission.

Internal / By Invitation Series

Science Series

Multi-part manuscript collections covering a specific domain or topic in depth, offering comprehensive, coordinated coverage across a series of linked publications.

Multiple Manuscripts
Varies Figures
Varies References
Per type Peer review
Internal or by invitation only
View full details
When to choose this type

Science Series are suited to topics that benefit from sustained, multi-angle coverage — where a single article cannot do justice to the breadth or complexity of a domain. They are ideal for emerging fields, interdisciplinary topics, or areas undergoing rapid transformation where coordinated, sequenced publications provide greater value than standalone pieces.

Series structure
  • Series overview — editorial introduction framing the topic, scope, and rationale
  • Individual manuscripts — each stands alone but contributes to the overarching narrative
  • Articles within a series may span multiple content types (Reviews, Perspectives, Progress, etc.)
  • Consistent cross-referencing and shared thematic branding across instalments
  • Optional concluding synthesis or outlook piece
Peer review

Each manuscript within the series undergoes peer review appropriate to its content type. The series concept and scope are reviewed by a senior editor for coherence and editorial value.

Submission process

Not open for unsolicited submission. Science Series are planned and commissioned by the RevisX editorial team, sometimes in collaboration with invited guest editors or domain experts. Researchers interested in proposing a series topic may contact the editors with a concept note outlining the domain, proposed scope, and potential contributors.

Submit your paper

We're ready to disseminate your translational biomedical research results to the world. Our streamlined submission process and rapid peer review ensure your work gets published quickly and efficiently. Join us in advancing reproducible, rigorous, and translational biomedical research.

Submit Now Contact Editorial board ›