Biophysics Reviews (BPR) is published by AIP Publishing. The editors are responsible for the scientific content and other editorial matters related to the journal.

The Review Process

As a service to our authors, BPR is committed to an efficient review process leading to rapid editorial decisions.

All newly submitted manuscripts are read and evaluated by the editorial staff. The editors may seek informal advice from colleagues and members of the Advisory Board. The goal is to assess if the manuscript should be sent for formal peer review. Manuscripts which are judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest, or otherwise inappropriate, are rejected promptly without external review. At this stage, editors also evaluate the possible suitability of the manuscript for other journals within the AIPP portfolio. Authors will have the option to automatically transfer their work to a journal recommended by the Editor.

Manuscripts which pass the initial assessment are sent for formal peer review. Typically, two or three independent reviewers are carefully selected from the global research community.

The reviewers comment critically on the validity and importance of the paper and provide their opinion concerning the novelty, impact, and interest to the readers. Reviewers are encouraged to organize their feedback into “Major/Required Revisions”, “Minor/Recommended Revisions”, and “General Feedback”. If a reviewer considers a manuscript to be better suited for another AIPP journal, that reviewer should provide rationale for this recommendation.

Reviewer reports are intended to advise the editors. To improve the clarity of the advice provided to the authors, the reviewers may be invited to confidentially cross-review all reports received. The additional feedback should be provided to the editors within three days. In cases where the decision is clear, the editors may proceed without cross-review. The editors reconcile all the advice received to reach a decision. Generally, the editors transmit all comments intended for the authors. Occasionally, the comments may be edited to preserve the anonymity and collegiality of the process.

Authors are invited to take the reviewer’s criticisms seriously. When invited to resubmit, authors should make every attempt to address all criticisms presented to them.

The editors will not reveal the identity of the reviewers to authors or other reviewers, conversely, reviewers are instruction to refrain from identifying themselves to the authors.

Reviewers are instructed to keep the review process and all related material strictly confidential. Reviewers may consult colleagues but should first inform the editors to preserve the integrity of the review process. When seeking external opinions, the reviewer should consider possible conflict of interests. The editors also ask that reviewers report their own conflicts of interest.

Authors may appeal a decision to reject a manuscript. To be considered, the authors should request a formal appeal with justification for why the manuscript requires further consideration. If reviewer reports were included with the rejection letter, the comments must be addressed in the appeal request.

Once an appeal is submitted, the editors will collate all information relevant to the manuscript, including the cover letter, communications with the authors, and reviewer reports, if any. This information is discussed with the Editor-in-Chief, editors who worked on the manuscript, and any relevant Editorial Board members. When reviewing an appeal, any member of the Editorial Board with a real or perceived conflict of interest will not participate. The discussion will focus on the manuscript under consideration, the range of submissions the journal receives in the area, the overall status of the field, and the editors’ expectations for a paper in the area.

If the appeal is successful, the article’s review will be resumed. The original rejection decision is upheld if the appeal is unsuccessful. The author of a paper that has been rejected after an appeal may request that the Publisher of AIP Publishing review the manuscript. The role of the Publisher is not to decide if the manuscript should be accepted, but rather to assess if the editors followed the proper procedures for manuscript review. If it is determined that the editors did not follow proper procedures, they will review the manuscript again and decide if it should be published.

Criteria for Publication

Content. BPR publishes original research and reviews.

Review articles provide either comprehensive or focused overviews of innovative research in biophysics. Reviews that, in the editor’s or reviewer’s opinion, do not meet this standard will be rejected.

To be published in BPR, an original research paper must have the potential to influence thinking in the field and should make a fundamental discovery or represent a significant advance in the understanding of an existing problem. Moreover, it must meet several general criteria:

  • Validity: The paper must provide strong evidence for its conclusions and data must be technically sound.
  • Novelty: The paper must report unpublished, original scientific research. Abstracts, preprints, and conference presentations do not compromise claims of novelty.
  • Interest: A paper must be both important to researchers within a specific field and of interest to a broader readership.

Although there is no length limit, manuscripts should be concise and present a clear description of the research. Articles should include sufficient information to allow other researchers to reproduce the reported results. Authors may include supplementary material, including video or other multimedia files. In all cases, the editors decide whether the length of an article is appropriate for the information presented.

Language standard: It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure a manuscript is written clearly. A manuscript can be rejected if the scientific meaning is unclear due to poor English. Manuscripts that do not meet the language standard of Biophysics Reviews will be returned to the authors for rewrite before peer review, during the review process and/or if provisionally accepted pending language editing.

Good science has little value unless it is clearly communicated. To ensure a manuscript is written clearly, AIP Publishing recommends authors use a service, such as AIPP Author Services, to improve the quality of your paper’s written English. AIPP Author Services was developed in line with our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion for all authors. Using AIP Authors Services, or similar, will help ensure your paper is free of language deficiencies to allow editors and reviewers to fully understand your research. With AIP Author Services, a native English-speaking subject matter expert will correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. The subject matter expert will also verify the correct and consistent use of technical terms and content in your paper. Note that use of AIP Author Services is not a requirement nor does it guarantee publication.

Patents. Authors who submit manuscripts containing ideas that may be patentable, do so at their own risk. Neither BPR nor AIP Publishing assumes any responsibility in this regard.

Byline. The person who submits the paper is responsible for ensuring that all authors approve of the inclusion of their names in the byline. After the submission date, whenever a coauthor is removed or added to a byline, we must have a signed agreement of that coauthor before we publish the manuscript.

Copyright. Authors who publish in BPR must complete an exclusive License-to-Publish Agreement before the journal can publish their manuscript. To avoid unnecessary delays, authors should sign the agreement electronically upon manuscript submission.

Authors have the right to post their BPR-accepted manuscript on the Web immediately after AIP Publishing accepts it for publication. In addition, 12 months after publication, authors may post the final AIP Publishing version on their personal website, the author's institutional website, or in an institutional or funder-designated repository. You may create a link to the BPR publication.

Errata. The journal publishes Errata when authors need to correct significant errors of substance in their published manuscripts. The title should read: “Erratum: <original title> [Biophys. Rev., vol. <number>, page <number> (<year>)].” This is followed by the author names, institutions, and text to be included in the corrected version. Errata should be clear and concise.

Retraction and Correction Policies

AIP Publishing’s policy is based on best practices in academic publishing. We take our responsibility to maintain the integrity and thoroughness of the scholarly record of our content seriously. We place great importance on the accuracy of published articles. Authors may make changes to articles after they have been published online only under the circumstances outlined in AIP Publishing’s Retraction and Correction Policies.


If your manuscript is not accepted for publication in BPR, an editor may recommend a transfer to another AIP Publishing journal for immediate consideration.

If you wish to transfer your manuscript to another AIP Publishing journal, please contact the BPR editorial office to request a transfer. A list of AIP Publishing journals and descriptions can be found here. We offer this transfer service as a convenience to authors so that they do not have to resubmit a manuscript to another AIP Publishing journal. Manuscripts must meet the receiving journal’s acceptance criteria, and authors should review these polices before transfer. Upon transfer, all reviewer reports and editor recommendations will be sent along with the manuscript. Note that there is no guarantee the receiving journal will publish a transferred manuscript.

Ethical Guidelines for Biological Research

Internal Review Board (IRB) Guidelines for Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

Every research article submitted to Biophysics Reviews is required to include a statement in the Author Declarations section that states that the authors obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it is not required). This statement must include the names of the ethics committee or IRB, approval ID numbers, and a statement that any human participants gave informed consent before participating in the study. This applies to all Articles, including trials involving active interventions, non-intervention studies, and audits. Additional supporting documents can also be uploaded at the time you submit your manuscript.

Failure to meet the above requirements or to otherwise adhere to ethical standards in the use of animal test subjects may be grounds for manuscript rejection. Authors who would like more guidance on the accepted standards for human and animal subjects in research may consult the following documents:

Guidelines for Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research must follow guidelines established by the National Academy of Sciences which is published in the National Academies Press.

A statement of approved by the institutional review committee must be stated in the Methods section of any manuscript that describes experiments involving human or animal subjects. This statement must also indicate that human subjects gave informed consent. Manuscripts describing such research must include a statement verifying that local IRB approval was obtained prior to investigations on human subjects and, was in accordance with an assurance filed with and approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, if appropriate.

Recombinant DNA Research Guidelines

Any recombinant DNA research submitted to Biophysics Reviews must follow the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules. Adherence to these guidelines should be described in the Methods section of your manuscript.

Clinical Trials Registry

Biophysics Reviews requires that all clinical trials be registered in a public trials registry (e.g.,

Authors must comply with published CONSORT guidelines. The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials, which offers a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation. As a part of a broader effort to improve the reporting of different types of health research and to improve the quality of research used in decision-making in healthcare, CONSORT compliance has been widely adopted by prominent general medical journals, medical journals, and leading editorial organizations.

More information on the CONSORT guidelines can be found here.

Reporting Experimental Design

You may state the following information in the Methods section of your submitted manuscript. You may also provide additional documentation at submission by uploading supporting files.

Sample Size: For studies that involve animal subjects, authors must report statistical methods that were used to determine sample size for each experiment. Sample sizes must be reported as an exact number (as opposed to a range) for all experiments, if appropriate. Authors must also explain any discrepancies, if sample sizes change over the course of the experiment.

Replication: Authors must provide enough details about sample and data collection to enable the reader to differentiate independent data points, technical replicates, and biological replicates. Whenever appropriate, you should explicitly describe how biological replicates were acquired. When presenting results from a representative experiment, authors must specify the number of times the experiment was repeated successfully as well as discuss any limitations to the repeatability.

Randomization: Include a statement about randomization methods in the figure caption or Methods section whenever appropriate. For manuscripts that report animal experiments, a statement is required, as knowledge of randomization may influence interpretation of the results. The absence of a statement indicates there was no randomization employed in experiments.

Blinding: Whenever possible, the researcher should not be aware of how samples were distributed, assigned, and allocated during an experiment. You must include a statement describing the level of blinding for all animal experiments reported or include a statement that blinding was not possible. The absence of a statement indicates no blinding was employed in experiments.

Reporting Statistics: Authors must state, describe, and justify statistical tests used for analysis. You must include relevant statistical measures, such as mean, median, and error bars (standard deviation and standard error of the mean), used to describe the data. Regardless of overall significance, you must report the P value for each test. If the sample size of the experiment reported in the manuscript is small, authors should use statistical tests appropriate for small sample sizes or justify the use of large sample size tests.


Antibodies: The sensitivity, specificity, and reactivity of all antibodies used in any reported assay should be profiled. Authors using antibodies in their experiments and assays must report the catalog number (clone number) or primary citation for each antibody. If these sources do not provide information for the specific assays and species reported, researchers must report any validation data that they have obtained as supporting information or as a submission to an antibody database.

Cell lines: You must state the source of the cell lines (catalog number, vendor/cell bank) and any authentication details associated with that cell line (method used, results, and when the testing was last conducted). We ask authors to compare any cell lines used in assays and experiments reported in the manuscript with a list of commonly misidentified cell lines maintained by the International Cell Line Authentication Committee. If you use a cell line that is on this list, please provide and state the scientific justification in your Methods section. You must also report the mycoplasma contamination testing status for each cell line used in your experiments.