Instructions to Authors
Who We Are
Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly open-access journal that publishes peer-reviewed research and news concerning human health and the environment. One of the overarching principles of the journal is to provide a forum for the objective and balanced presentation of scientifically credible information. Although EHP is sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), its editorial policies are independent of the institute.
In 2004 EHP became an open-access journal. All content published since the beginning of the journal in 1972 is available free online at http://www.ehponline.org/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/253/. EHP is committed to promoting the discussion and exchange of information internationally, as described in detail at http://www.ehponline.org/international/.
What We Publish
The environmental health sciences include many fields of study and increasingly comprise multidisciplinary research areas. EHP publishes articles from a wide range of scientific disciplines encompassing mechanistic research, experimental and observational human studies, and in vitro and in vivo animal research with a clear relationship to human health effects. Studies involving exposure science, climate change, ecologic issues, or effects on wildlife populations are welcome, but the relevance of the findings to human health should be made clear. EHP also addresses ethical, legal, social, and policy issues related to environmental public health. Because children are uniquely sensitive to their environments, EHP devotes a research section specifically to issues surrounding children’s environmental health.
EHP provides additional information on environmental health issues through its News and Editorials. Although EHP welcomes ideas for News and Editorials, the journal does not accept unsolicited manuscripts of these types. Please contact the Editor-in-Chief for further information.
About your Manuscript
All papers submitted to EHP are evaluated by a group of consulting editors to determine whether the topic is within the scope of the journal and to evaluate adherence to word limits and journal format. Papers also are assessed for originality, scientific quality, environmental health significance, clarity of presentation, and conciseness. Before papers are sent for peer review, they are screened for possible plagiarism (see Scientific Integrity below), and authors must submit a Competing Financial Interests Declaration form on behalf of all authors (see Competing Financial Interests below). Papers selected for review are assigned to an Associate Editor, who identifies reviewers and makes recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. Members of the Editorial Review Board serve as a pool of potential reviewers of papers. Both the Board of Associate Editors and the Editorial Review Board are composed of leading scientists from all segments of the environmental health sciences. The overall acceptance rate of papers submitted to the journal is approximately 15%.
Types of Manuscripts
Manuscripts in the categories below are considered for publication. All manuscripts are peer reviewed except Correspondence. See Article Length below for details concerning word limits.
Correspondence (≤ 750 words) should address specific scientific issues or questions raised by Research or News Articles published in the journal within the previous 6 months. Authors of papers cited in Correspondence will be given the opportunity to respond. Letters addressing issues raised in previously published letters are discouraged. Correspondence may include a brief table or small figure if it is critical to the discussion. New data must not be included. Authors may include data from or redrawing of previously published materials as long as the work is cited and written permission from the original authors and/or publishers has been granted for republication in both printed and electronic form. Each figure is considered equivalent to 250 words toward the total word count. Correspondence that cites abstracts or unpublished observations is not acceptable and will not be published. Letters that are highly polemic or personal in nature will not be published. Correspondence is not peer reviewed and is published at the discretion of the EHP editors. Conclusions and opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the policies of EHP.
Commentaries (≤ 5,000 words) present information and personal insight on a particular topic. Commentaries should not be extended critiques of single articles appearing in EHP or elsewhere. Factual data should be included to substantiate arguments. EHP reserves the right to reject Commentaries without review if they are perceived as being too polemic or personal in nature. EHP also reserves the right to propose that Commentaries be reviewed as one side of a point/counterpoint debate. Assuming the original author agrees, EHP will ask another author to address the opposite side of an argument. If both papers are accepted, EHP will publish them together. Manuscripts on ethical, legal, social, or policy issues may also be accepted in this category.
Research Articles (≤ 7,000 words) report original scientific research and discovery. Research Articles may come from any field of scientific research relevant to the study of human health and the environment.
Substantive Reviews (≤ 10,000 words) provide an overview, integration of information, and critical analysis of a particular field of research or theme related to environmental health sciences. Previous research should be comprehensively reviewed regardless of whether the findings are consistent with expectations or the review authors’ hypotheses. It is appropriate for authors to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of individual studies, focus on high-quality studies that add to the weight of the evidence on the topic under review, identify information gaps, and make recommendations for future research. Lengthy historical perspectives generally are not appropriate.
Quantitative Reviews and Meta-Analyses (≤ 10,000 words) present, contrast, and (when appropriate) combine data across studies to address a specific study question related to environmental health. Inclusion criteria and strategies used to search the literature should be explicitly described, along with analytic methods used to evaluate or combine data. The potential for publication bias and heterogeneity among studies should be investigated, and graphical displays of data contributed by individual studies are encouraged. The strengths and weaknesses of individual studies and potential causes of discordant findings among studies also should be discussed. As with Substantive Reviews, authors should integrate and critically analyze information from previous research, identify information gaps, and make recommendations for future research.
Reviews Based on Meetings or Conferences (≤ 10,000 words) should review the state of the science for a particular area, identify research gaps and needs, and explain how the outcome of the meeting or conference addresses those gaps and needs. These reviews should focus on the science or theme but not on the conference or meeting itself. De novo data, participant lists, dialogue of workgroups or committees, and discussion of the internal organization of the meeting are not allowed. These papers should be submitted to EHP no more than 1 year after the meeting or conference takes place. Prospective authors should consult with the Editor-in-Chief before submitting a review based on a meeting or conference.
Brief Communications (≤ 4,000 words) are short scholarly reports that provide timely information of interest to the broad environmental health community. They may be used to highlight the importance of new environmental health programs or agencies or the advantages of new research approaches in the context of knowledge gaps; or to raise awareness of and make recommendations for addressing contemporary or emerging environmental health problems. A Brief Communication may take the form of a statement from an organization or group concerning the need for action on an environmental health issue (typically with recommendations). Authors should contact the Editor-in-Chief in advance for permission to submit. Brief Communications are reviewed internally for relevance, importance, and clarity, and are published without Advance Publication in the Perspectives section of EHP. They are assigned a DOI number and indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE. Formatting requirements, including references and any tables or figures, are consistent with those for EHP Research Articles, with the exception of the abstract, which must be unstructured (without subheadings) and ≤ 200 words. In addition, Supplemental Material is not allowed.
Originality of Submission
Contributions submitted to EHP must be original works of the author(s) and must not have been previously published in print or online or simultaneously submitted to another publication. Previously published material (e.g., figures, tables) may be included in Commentaries and Reviews, assuming the original authors have given permission to reproduce the material and all copyright issues have been resolved. For original Research Articles, previously published schemata or illustrative figures are acceptable with the proper attribution and permission. Text or narrative from guidance documents, technical reports, and position papers by various government and nongovernmental organizations may be considered if they include new information. EHP will consider papers from dissertations that have been published in their entirety by a university in partial fulfillment of a degree. Manuscripts presented at a scientific meeting but not published in full or under review for publication elsewhere also will be considered. As indicated in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf)], it is the responsibility of the author to make a full statement to the editor concerning materials in a manuscript that might be considered redundant or duplicative. For additional clarification, please contact the Editor-in-Chief.
EHP requires assurances that animals used in a study have been treated humanely and with regard for the alleviation of suffering. Research involving humans must have been conducted according to the Common Rule (http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter2/page04b.htm). Research involving humans also must be approved by an appropriate institutional review board and comply with all relevant national, state, and local regulations. For research conducted outside the United States and thus exempt from U.S. federal regulations, authors must perform the research in accordance with principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/). Approval and compliance with research requirements regarding human subjects must be noted, and information regarding informed consent procedures must be described in the “Methods” section of manuscripts concerning human subjects research.
EHP is sometimes confronted with issues regarding potential research misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication. Authors should be aware that all papers submitted to EHP are screened routinely for plagiarism, defined as “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit” (American Medical Association. 2007. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors, 10th edition. New York:Oxford University Press). Instances of documented plagiarism and allegations of data fabrication will be brought to the attention of the authors’ host institutions. Documented cases of plagiarism or data fabrication could lead to a 3-year ban on future publication in EHP by the authors, a published Expression of Concern, and/or retraction of the paper.
EHP anticipates receiving submissions on research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agriculture, plants, animals, or the environment (also known as dual-use research). Papers flagged for dual-use issues by EHP editors will undergo an additional level of review concerning the implications to society of publishing such a paper, and EHP reserves the right to seek expert advice in such cases. Authors should be aware that EHP could determine that the risks to public health and safety of publishing the paper outweigh the benefits of publishing, even if the paper has otherwise been deemed acceptable for publication.
EHP endorses the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting results from animal studies (http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE). We encourage authors to review these guidelines when designing their studies and to use them in writing papers for submission to EHP, and we encourage our Associate Editors and peer reviewers to keep in mind the principles articulated in the ARRIVE guidelines when evaluating papers involving animal research. EHP encourages authors of Review articles to follow recommendations for transparent reporting of systematic reviews as described in the PRISMA Statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org). Authors performing microarray experiments should follow the Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) guidelines developed by the Microarray Gene Expression Data (MGED) Society (http://www.mged.org/miame).
Competing Financial Interests
EHP has a policy of full disclosure. Authors must declare all actual or potential competing financial interests involving people or organizations that might reasonably be perceived as relevant. Disclosure of competing interests does not imply that the information in the article is questionable or that conclusions are biased. Decisions to publish or reject an article will not be based solely on a declaration of a competing interest.
For each manuscript, authors must submit a Competing Financial Interests Declaration (CFID) form (available at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EHP-CFI-form-blank.pdf). Papers will not be processed for peer review unless a CFID form has been submitted. Authors of Correspondence and Editorials also are required to submit a CFID form.
Authors must disclose all actual or potential competing financial interests occurring within the last 3 years, including but not limited to
- Grant support
- Employment (past, present, or firm offer of future)
- Patents (pending or applied)
- Payment for expert witness or testimony
- Personal financial interests by the authors, immediate family members, or institutional affiliations that may gain or lose financially through publication of the article
- Forms of compensation, including travel funding, consultancies, board positions, patent and royalty arrangements, stock shares, or bonds. Diversified mutual funds or investment trusts do not constitute a competing financial interest. Authors should carefully examine the wording of documents such as grants and contracts to determine whether there might be an actual or potential competing interest.
Employment of any author by a for-profit or nonprofit foundation or advocacy group or work as a consultant also must be indicated on the CFID form.
As a condition of review and publication, authors must further certify that their freedom to design, conduct, interpret, and publish research is not compromised by any controlling sponsor.
A statement of disclosure consistent with the information contained in the CFID form must be included in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript submitted to the journal. If there are no actual or potential competing financial interests, this must be indicated: for example, “The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.”
Editors and reviewers also must disclose to the Editor-in-Chief any actual or potential competing interests, both financial and nonfinancial, that have occurred within the last 3 years and could reasonably be perceived as relevant. Competing nonfinancial interests include former or current mentor–student relationships, faculty appointments in the same department or organization, familial relationships, service on advisory boards that oversee the research under review, collaborations, or membership in organizations that hold ideological views that are contradictory to the theme or topic under review.
EHP relies on the integrity of all authors to provide accurate disclosure statements. However, authors can expect scrutiny of their statements by the editors, reviewers, and readership. Alleged inaccuracies of declared competing interests should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. EHP will impose a 3-year ban on publication in EHP by any authors found to have willfully failed to disclose a competing financial interest. A paper may also be retracted or an Expression of Concern published and appended to the article.
All words in the main text, title pages, abstract, tables, and references count toward EHP word limits. In addition, each figure is counted as 250 additional words. Manuscripts that do not conform to the word limits may be returned to the author(s) for revision before the review process is initiated. Depending on the topic and potential impact of a paper, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to waive word limits. Authors may place some types of information, such as lengthy descriptions of previously published methods, into Supplemental Material; however, these methods must be described briefly in the text of the paper. Information included in Supplemental Material does not count toward the word limit. The judicious use of references also may help meet the following word limits:
- Correspondence: ≤ 750 words
- Commentaries: ≤ 5,000 words
- Research Articles: ≤ 7,000 words
- Substantive Reviews: ≤ 10,000 words
- Quantitative Reviews and Meta-Analyses: ≤ 10,000 words
- Reviews Based on Meetings or Conferences: ≤ 10,000 words.
Parts of a Manuscript
The title pages should include the following items in the order shown, beginning on the first page of the manuscript:
- Manuscript title, not to exceed 20 words [Titles should describe the research or topic of the paper but not summarize results or conclusions; titles generally should not contain abbreviations or numerical values, with the exception of abbreviated study names (e.g., NHANES)]
- Names of the authors spelled out in full
- Affiliations of all authors (department, institution, city, state/province, and country)
- Name of and contact information for corresponding author to whom page proofs should be sent, including complete address for express mail service, telephone number, and e-mail address
- A short running title, not to exceed 50 characters and spaces
- Acknowledgments, including grant information
- A competing financial interests declaration.
All papers must include a structured abstract of ≤ 250 words, which should not contain references. No information should be reported in the abstract that does not appear in the text of the manuscript. In general we recommend that authors indicate study names or sources of data that are integral to the study in the title or abstract. Conclusions should mention the relevance of the work to environmental health science. Headings to be used in the structured abstracts vary by article type as described below:
- Commentaries: Background, Objectives, Discussion, Conclusions
- Research Articles, Quantitative Reviews, and Meta-Analyses: Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions
- Substantive Reviews and Reviews Based on Meetings or Conferences: Background, Objectives, Methods, Discussion, Conclusions.
The organization of the text varies by article type and roughly reflects the structure of the abstract:
- Commentaries: Introduction (comprising the Background and Objectives stated in the abstract), Discussion, Conclusions
- Research Articles: Introduction (comprising the Background and Objectives stated in the abstract), Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions
- Reviews: Introduction (comprising the Background and Objectives stated in the abstract), Methods (including data sources), Results (as appropriate), Discussion, Conclusions.
Concise subheadings (≤ 8 words each) may be used to designate major topics within each of these sections.
References, Tables, Figures, and Supplemental Material
The following items should be provided after the main text of the paper in this order: References, Tables, Figure Legends. The References, Tables, and Figure Legends must each begin on a new page of the manuscript. Figures and Supplemental Material should be provided as separate files. Additional information concerning each of these sections is provided in “EHP Style” below.
Conformance to EHP Style Guidelines
Manuscripts submitted to EHP must conform to all EHP style requirements as described in “EHP Style” below. Authors should take special note of requirements for citations and references, figures, and tables. Manuscripts that do not conform to style requirements may be returned to the authors for modification before the initiation of the peer-review process. This step will cause a significant delay in the review and possible acceptance of the manuscript. All manuscripts must be submitted to EHP in English.
Manuscript pages must be numbered consecutively, beginning with the title page, and lines should be numbered in the original submission and all subsequent revisions. The manuscript must be prepared using Times New Roman font at 12-point size. The manuscript must be double-spaced, with all margins set at 1 inch.
For additional information, see the AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors, 10th edition (American Medical Association 2007). A basic source for spelling is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition.
Resources for assistance with research, presentation, and language are available from the following organizations:
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication (http://www.icmje.org/)]
- AuthorAID (http://www.authoraid.info/).
EHP covers all disciplines engaged in the broad field of environmental health sciences. Therefore, authors should write in a clear and simple manner, in the active voice, and avoid unnecessary jargon, so the article is understandable to readers in other disciplines and to those whose first language is not English. In deference to the breadth of the journal’s readership, please define terms that may not be universally recognized among all environmental health scientists.
Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, confounders, and covariates, and describe the methods or assays used to characterize study data. Results should be presented in a clear and unambiguous manner. Comparison groups or reference conditions should be clearly indicated when reporting measures of association or effect and when reporting p-values for statistical tests comparing outcomes or effects between groups.
We recommend against the use of “-fold” terminology because it can be difficult to determine whether it is being used to describe relative versus absolute differences or changes between groups or conditions.
Whenever possible, provide an estimate of variability or precision when reporting measures of association or central tendency (e.g., confidence intervals, standard deviations, interquartile ranges), regardless of whether p-values are also reported for these estimates.
All abbreviations, including abbreviations for elements (e.g., Fe, Cu) and chemical compounds [e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), carbon dioxide (CO2)], should be defined in the text on first use with abbreviations used thereafter.
Units of measure should be abbreviated only when a specific amount is given (e.g., “concentration of 10 ng/mL” versus “units of nanograms per milliliter”).
In-Text Citations and Reference Lists
References and citations must be formatted according to EHP style as described below. This will reduce copyediting time and the number of author queries included in page proofs. Authors should double-check all references for accuracy and completeness of information, spelling, diacritical marks, symbols, subscripts/superscripts, and italics. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy of their references.
All in-text citations must be in name/date form. Place the citation immediately after the textual information cited, placing name and date within parentheses without a comma. EndNote is a useful source for EHP reference style; the current EHP reference style for EndNote can be downloaded from http://www.endnote.com/support/enstyles.asp.
- Single author: (Wing 2002)
- Two authors: (Wing and Wolf 2000)
- Three or more authors: Use first author’s last name plus “et al.” (Wing et al. 2008)
- Multiple sources cited at one time: List publications alphabetically by author in the citation. Separate publications by the same author(s) with commas and those by different authors with semicolons: (Aldridge et al. 2005; Jameson et al. 2006; Levin et al. 2007; Slotkin 2004a, 2004b; Slotkin et al. 2008)
- Multiple sources cited at one time with different first authors but same last name and date: Use first author’s last name plus initial(s) (Smith A 2000; Smith J 2000).
Provide references for any quotations used in the text. For example:
According to Rubin et al. (2001), “it is only with a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach that the environmental and public health significance of Pfiesteria will be fully understood.”
Any items that must be cited but are not accessible to the public must appear in the text in parentheses but should not be listed in the references: (Ramsdell JS, Moeller PDR, personal communication); (Reeves MK, unpublished data).
Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy of their references. The list of references should begin on a new page after the Conclusions of the manuscript. All references must include
- Author/editor last name plus initials (for six or fewer authors; if there are more than six authors, use “et al.” after the sixth) or authoring agency
- Year of publication
- Full title of article or chapter (lower case)
- Title of journal [abbreviated according to BIOSIS, Index Medicus, or PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/journals)] or book/proceedings in title case
- For books and meeting reports, city/state/country of publication and name of publisher
- Volume and inclusive page numbers
- DOI number, if available; this information is required for articles published online only
- For websites and documents available online, URL (web address) and date accessed.
If you are uncertain what to include, please include all information.
List references alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If the first author has more than one publication, list references in alphabetical order (letter by letter) of subsequent authors. If the first author shares the last name with another first author (Smith JM vs. Smith RB), alphabetize by initials. If you list more than one publication by the same author/group of authors, arrange publications by date, early to late. If you list more than one publication published in the same year by the same author/group of authors, use a, b, c, and so on to distinguish the publications.
Sample Alphabetical List
Slotkin TA. 2004a. Cholinergic systems in brain development and disruption by neurotoxicants: nicotine, environmental tobacco smoke, organophosphates. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 198:132–151.
Slotkin TA. 2004b. Guidelines for developmental neurotoxicity and their impact on organophosphate pesticides: a personal view from an academic perspective. Neurotoxicology 25:631–640.
Slotkin TA. 2005. Developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphates: a case study of chlorpyrifos. In: Toxicity of Organophosphate and Carbamate Pesticides (Gupta RC, ed). San Diego:Elsevier Academic Press, 293–314.
Slotkin TA, MacKillop EA, Ryde IT, Tate CA, Seidler FJ. 2007. Screening for developmental neurotoxicity using PC12 cells: comparisons of organophosphates with a carbamate, an organochlorine and divalent nickel. Environ Health Perspect 115:93–101.
Slotkin TA, Persons D, Slepetis RJ, Taylor D, Bartolome J. 1984. Control of nucleic acid and protein synthesis in developing brain, kidney, and heart of the neonatal rat: effects of a difluoromethylornithine, a specific, irreversible inhibitor of ornithine decarboxylase. Teratology 30:211–224.
Slotkin TA, Seidler FJ. 2007. Comparative developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphates in vivo: transcriptional responses of pathways for brain cell development, cell signaling, cytotoxicity and neurotransmitter systems. Brain Res Bull 72:232–274.
Types of references
Journal article—conventional reference
Lewin SW, Arthur JR, Riemersma RA, Nicol F, Walker SW, Millar EM, et al. 2002. Selenium supplementation acting through the induction of thioredoxin reductase and glutathione peroxidase protects the human endothelial cell. Biochim Biophys Acta 1593:85–92.
Journal article—advance publication
Fanshawe TR, Diggle PJ, Rushton S, Sanderson R, Lurz PWW, Glinianaia SV, et al. 2007. Modelling spatio-temporal variation in exposure to particulate matter: a two-stage approach. Environmetrics; doi:10.1002/env.889 [Online 17 December 2007].
Journal article—published online only
Cazelles B, Chavez M, McMichael AJ, Hales S. 2005. Nonstationary influence of El Niño on the synchronous dengue epidemics in Thailand. PLoS Med 2:e106; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020106.
Journal article, “in press”
Theppeang K, Glass TA, Bandeen-Roche K, Todd AC, Rohde CA, Schwartz BS. In press. Sex and race/ethnicity differences in lead dose biomarkers: predictors of lead in blood, tibia, and patella in older, community-dwelling adults in an urban setting. Am J Public Health.
Chapter in edited book
Clark K, Cousins I, MacKay D, Yamada K. 2003. Observed concentrations in the environment. In: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Vol 3, Part Q: Phthalate Esters (Staples CA, ed). New York:Springer, 125–177.
Agency as author
National Research Council. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th ed. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
Zaslavsky I, Pezzoli K, Valentine D, Lin A, Sarabia H, Ellisman MH, et al. 2006. Integrating GIS and portal technologies for assessing environmental health impacts of Hurricane Katrina. In: Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, 19–22 August 2006, Houston, TX, Vol 2 (Starrett SK, Hong J, Lyon WG, eds). Houston, TX:American Science Press, 385–390.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2008. NTP-CERHR Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Bisphenol A. NIH Publication no. 08-5994. Available: http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/evaluations/chemicals/bisphenol/bisphenol.pdf [accessed 24 June 2010].
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2013. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Homepage. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm [accessed 5 November 2013].
(Additional reference samples are available below.)
Do not use footnotes. Place all textual information within the manuscript and all references in the proper form both in text and in the reference list.
Preparing Tables and Figures
Each table must begin on a new page after the References. Tables must be numbered with Arabic numerals, followed by a brief title (not to exceed 25 words). Tables should contain no more than two layers of column headings. A column heading must be provided for each column. Additional column heads should not be placed in the middle of a table. Tables must be created using the Table feature in Microsoft Word. List abbreviations and definitions under each table. Type footnotes directly after the abbreviations, beginning on the next line. General footnotes to tables must be indicated by lowercase superscript letters beginning with “a” for each table. Footnotes indicating statistical significance must be identified in the following order: asterisks (*, **), number signs (#, ##), and daggers (†, ††). The comparison to which the p-value applies must be clearly indicated (e.g., “compared with untreated controls”). For presentation of data in tables, please use the “±” symbol for arithmetic mean and standard deviation or standard error (e.g., “mean ± SE”) and parentheses for the standard error when presented with the geometric mean [e.g., “GM (SE)”]. Please present number and percent as “n (%)” (i.e., in one column separated with one space). Confidence intervals should be presented in parentheses in the same column as the point estimate, with the upper and lower bounds separated by a comma [e.g., (0.1, 2.3)].
Figure legends should be provided on a new page after tables. Each figure legend should include a title for the entire figure and descriptors for each panel [e.g., “Figure 1. Incidence of hepatocellular adenomas (A) and carcinomas (B) in mice exposed to DEHP”]. Define error bars and any abbreviations not defined in the text. Footnotes indicating statistical significance must be identified in the following order: asterisks (*, **), number signs (#, ##), and daggers (†, ††). The comparison to which the p-value applies must be clearly indicated (e.g., “compared with controls from the corresponding age group”). Type footnotes directly after the abbreviations beginning on the next line.
Each figure must be provided as a separate file in one of the following formats: EPS, PDF, TIFF, or JPG. Do not embed figures in the main text (Microsoft Word) file. Each figure must be labeled with the figure number. For TIFF or JPG format, the resolution should be 300 dpi for color images, 600 dpi for grayscale images, and 1,200 dpi for line art (black-and-white art). JPG files should be saved on the “highest quality” setting. Color images should be RGB and saved at a minimum of 8 bits per channel. Because figures may be reduced or enlarged to fit our layouts, sufficient resolution is essential. Vector images should be saved as editable EPS files. Any images embedded in the EPS should also be included in a separate file. Do not convert text to path outlines before submission.
Graphics must fit standard letter-size paper (8.5 × 11 inches, portrait orientation). Multiple panels within a figure also must fit on a single page. All letters, numbers, and lines must be clearly legible and easy to differentiate. Provide a key defining representational elements (e.g., dotted/dashed lines, symbols, box plot elements) for each figure. All axes must be clearly labeled, giving both the measure and the unit of measurement where applicable. Consistency among terms and styles (including symbols and colors) used in figures is desirable. For example, if a black circle represents the control in Figure 1, a black circle (or a black bar) should be used for controls in all other figures. Photomicrographs should include a scale bar in each image, and the length should be specified in the typed figure legend (e.g., “bar = 10 µm”). EHP encourages authors to use color to enhance figures. However, to ensure accessibility, all figures must be interpretable when printed in black and white.
EHP editors reserve the right to request that complex figures (e.g., figures with multiple panels showing information in a variety of formats, or that include panels related to different experiments) be divided into separate figures for publication. Questions concerning figures should be directed to EHPmanuscripts@niehs.nih.gov.
Adjusting an image for brightness and contrast is acceptable if it is applied to the entire image. Background data of gels and blots must not be removed. The final image must accurately represent the original data.
EHP welcomes reasonable amounts of material suitable for inclusion as online documentation for submitted manuscripts. Examples are bioinformatic data, formulae, statistical derivations, full gene data and analysis, additional high-resolution microscopic data, kinetic analyses, and other supporting tables, figures, or videos. The submitted manuscripts must be able to stand alone in the absence of Supplemental Material. All information included as Supplemental Material should be directly relevant to the article; however, information should be included only in the paper or the Supplemental Material—not in both. The principal methodological approach must be clearly described in the main body of the paper and not relegated to Supplemental Material. Supplemental Material will be peer reviewed along with the manuscript and thus must meet the same rigorous standards.
Supplemental Material should not exceed 2,000 words, including text, tables, references, and figure legends plus an additional 250 words per figure. If the Supplemental Material exceeds this limit, the author must justify the overage in the Author Comments field provided in our online manuscript submission system. Authors may provide a separate (permanent) web repository for information that is not included in the Supplemental Material file if they believe it would be of interest to readers. This material should be clearly identified as not peer reviewed. This information should be cited in the text and included in the reference list (formatted as a website).
Supplemental Material files are linked to papers through a common DOI number. We use Supplemental Material files “as is” (i.e., EHP will not copyedit or reformat the file). Therefore, please carefully check files to confirm that they are complete, accurate, and ready for publication.
- Begin the Supplemental Material file with a title page that indicates “Supplemental Material” followed by the title of the paper and the author list.
- Provide a Table of Contents (on or after the title page) if the Supplemental Material comprises multiple tables, figures, and/or sections of text.
- Place figure legends below corresponding figures.
- Landscape (versus portrait) layout may be used when needed.
- Tables or figures included in the Supplemental Material should be labeled as Table S1; Figure S1; and so on.
- When referring to Supplemental Material in the main manuscript, indicate the table, figure, or section as follows: See Supplemental Material; see Table S1; see Fig. S1; see Supplemental Material, p. 6; see Supplemental Material, Part 2.
- A separate reference list must be included in the Supplemental Material file for any sources cited in the Supplemental Material, even if they are cited in the main paper.
Manuscripts submitted to EHP will be processed using Editorial Manager, an online manuscript submission and tracking program (http://www.editorialmanager.com/ehp).
Initial Submission of a Manuscript
Authors should either log in or select the “Create a New Account” icon to create a new account. To determine if an account exists, e-mail EHPmanuscripts@niehs.nih.gov. Once logged in to the Manuscript Central site, authors must select the “Author Center” link. From this point, the system will guide the user through the submission process. Online help is available at all times during the process via the “Get Help Now” button in the upper right corner of the screen. Users may also exit and reenter the submission process at any time before completing a manuscript submission.
After completing an online submission, authors must submit a CFID form as soon as possible. This form can be found by selecting the “Instructions & Forms” link in the Author Center. The assigned manuscript number should be noted on the form. Authors should complete and sign the form, then submit a scanned document by e-mail to EHPManuscripts@niehs.nih.gov. Completed forms may also be faxed to (301) 480-2956.
Authors can monitor the progress of submissions at any time by logging in to the Author Center using their ID and password. Forgotten passwords may be obtained by entering your e-mail address in the “Password Help” section of EHP’s Manuscript Central homepage. If an account exists, instructions for resetting the password will be e-mailed to the user.
Manuscripts may be submitted only via the online system. Manuscripts submitted by other methods (e.g., hard copy, e-mail) will not be processed.
Cover Letter/Author Comments
Authors should not upload a separate cover letter during the submission process. Instead, the information normally reserved for a cover letter should be included in the Author Comments field provided in our online manuscript submission system. During the submission process, the system will prompt you for this information. Please type or copy-and-paste information that addresses the following points into the field provided:
- Assurances that the manuscript a) is an original work, b) has not been previously published whole or in part, and c) is not under consideration for publication elsewhere
- A statement that animals used in research have been treated humanely according to institutional guidelines, with due consideration to the alleviation of distress and discomfort. The source of those guidelines must be provided
- A statement that participation of human subjects did not occur until after informed consent was obtained
- Confirmation that all authors have disclosed any actual or potential competing interests regarding the submitted article and the nature of those interests (the required CFID form is available at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/cfi.pdf)
- If applicable, written permission from any copyright holder (usually the publisher) to reproduce figures, tables, questionnaires, or a substantial block of text in both print and electronic forms
- A statement indicating that all authors a) have read the manuscript, b) agree the work is ready for submission to a journal, and c) accept responsibility for the manuscript’s contents
- The names and e-mail addresses of up to six possible preferred reviewers, as well as up to six nonpreferred reviewers for the manuscript
- If applicable, a statement concerning previous publication of a manuscript or materials that might be considered redundant or duplicative.
Manuscripts are assessed for originality, scientific quality, environmental health significance, clarity of presentation, and conciseness. Scientific quality and environmental significance have a higher weight than the other criteria.
All new submissions undergo an initial review by a group of consulting editors. Authors will be notified within 1–3 weeks if their paper is not selected for peer review based on the evaluation. Papers selected for peer review (~ 20% of new submissions) are assigned to an Associate Editor, who identifies at least two peer reviewers and makes recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief based on their reviews. Reviewer names are not provided to authors, but author names are available to reviewers. Reviewers are asked to complete their review within 2 weeks.
After editorial consideration, a decision letter and reviewers’ comments will be e-mailed to authors. If a revision of the manuscript is required, authors must submit the revised manuscript to EHP within 6 weeks of the request. If authors fail to meet this deadline, the submission will be canceled unless the authors have obtained prior permission for an extension from the Editor-in-Chief. Authors must submit both the revised manuscript and a letter responding to reviewers’ comments.
Resubmission of a Revised Manuscript
If EHP requests revisions or accepts the manuscript, authors will need to submit all of the following through Editorial Manager (http://www.editorialmanager.com/ehp):
- All text, tables, and figure legends must be in one Microsoft Word document. Please ensure that any symbols and equations appear correctly on printed copies and that all figures and tables are cited in the body text in numerical order.
- Each revised figure must be submitted as a separate file in one of the following formats: EPS, PDF, TIFF, or JPG. Each figure must be labeled with the correct figure number for the revised manuscript. Additional information on formatting and content requirements is provided in “Preparing Tables and Figures” above.
- Authors must submit a Response to Reviewers document with point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments, a copy of the revised manuscript with changes tracked in Microsoft Word, and a clean version of the revised manuscript with all changes accepted. To expedite the processing of revised manuscripts, it is important to be as specific as possible in responding to reviewers’ comments. Authors should copy the editors’ and/or reviewers’ comments into the response letter and respond to each comment individually, including the specific changes made in response to each comment (if any) and where the changes are located in the revised draft. As in the original submission, the revised manuscripts must have numbered lines to facilitate locating specific text or changes.
- Revised manuscripts must conform to EHP length requirements, even if additional material is added to the manuscript in response to reviewer requests. Authors should consult with the Associate Editor for their paper for additional guidance if needed. Papers that substantially exceed EHP word limits may be returned to authors for additional revisions to reduce their length before acceptance.
Final Internal Review
All manuscripts undergo an in-house editorial review of scientific content and accuracy as well as compliance with EHP formatting and Competing Financial Interests requirements before they are accepted for publication. Authors will be notified that their paper has been accepted provisionally, at which point they may be asked to respond to additional post-review requests from the EHP Editor-in-Chief or Science Editor. Authors also are asked at this point to conduct their own final review of their paper to confirm that it is ready for Advance Publication. Authors should be aware that on rare occasions this final review identifies serious concerns that might prevent acceptance. However, in most cases, final acceptance will occur after authors respond to requests or questions raised by the final review.
EHP publishes unedited PDF versions of articles online as Advance Publication articles (http://www.ehponline.org/) within 3 working days of final acceptance unless a prepublication embargo period is agreed upon in advance (for more information on embargoes, see “Press Releases and Embargo Policy” below). In addition, unedited abstracts are published online in PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) and at http://www.ehponline.org/. The date the Advance Publication article is posted on the website will be considered the publication date of record.
Advance Publication articles are citable using the assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) number for the article. The DOI number enables the article to be immediately referenced and establishes publication priority. Papers are not copyedited until they are prepared for final publication. The PDF version of Advance Publication articles will be replaced with the copyedited, formatted version as soon as possible, and the DOI number will carry over to the copyedited article. In addition to the DOI number, the copyedited article will include assigned volume and page numbers that will allow full conventional citation.
To prepare each paper for final publication, EHP staff will convert electronic material to a desktop publishing format and copyedit the manuscript. The copyedited version, with embedded author queries, will be converted to PDF page proofs and sent to authors by e-mail. The authors can use free Acrobat Reader software (http://get.adobe.com/reader/otherversions/) to review the proofs. There are two methods of correcting and returning proofs:
- Authors may use Comment and Markup Tools in Acrobat and e-mail the corrected proof to the responsible editor.
- Authors may print the proof and write corrections directly on the printed copy, and then scan the marked proof and return it by e-mail. Authors using this method should also include with the page proofs a list of itemized changes (including their locations).
The copyedited proofs of an article may be slightly different from the Advance Publication version as a result of the editing process, but no substantive changes will be allowed. Any significant changes at this stage of processing will require a correction to be published at the end of the article. Extensive changes cannot be made at the proof stage; only minor changes, such as spelling, grammar, clarification, and referencing, should be requested. If new information has become available after acceptance of the manuscript, an addendum in proof can be included with the permission of the Editor-in-Chief.
Should a change to the author lineup be requested (add or remove an author, or change the order of authors), EHP must receive written approval from all authors indicating that they approve the change before it can be executed. This approval can be provided as a signature (in ink and scanned) or as a direct email to EHP; either approval method must include a copy of the new lineup. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to coordinate co-author approvals of the new lineup. Approvals on behalf of an author will not be accepted. Your paper will remain on hold until all approvals are received, so a request to change the author lineup could result in a delay to your publication date. Should all authors fail to approve the lineup, EHP will either publish the paper with the old lineup, or will consider retracting the article at the request of the authors.
Copyright, Reproduction, and Citation
EHP is a publication of the U.S. Government. Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or figures copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright. For further information, contact EHP Permissions (email@example.com).
Press Releases and Embargo Policy
Authors are responsible for arranging media outreach with their own press offices in conjunction with EHP. EHP will schedule publication dates to suit the needs of authors and their press officers. We recommend an embargo period of at least 2 full working days for any paper that receives a press release. This gives members of the media time to prepare stories and contact corresponding authors for additional information.
Authors whose papers have been provisionally accepted for publication should contact Susan Booker, EHP News Editor, at firstname.lastname@example.org to coordinate embargo and publication dates. Authors or press officers should also provide EHP a copy of their final press release.
Upon final acceptance EHP will send press officers a PDF copy of the Advance Publication version of the article to be distributed to media who request it. All pre-press materials will be clearly identified as embargoed and will include the embargo date and time established by EHP in conjunction with the authors. Authors must adhere to EHP’s embargo policy, and authors and media alike are responsible for ensuring that all third parties with whom they share pre-press materials honor the embargo.
Types of References
Journal article—conventional reference
Waalkes MP, Liu J, Diwan BA. 2007. Transplacental arsenic carcinogenesis in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 222:271–280.
Journal article—advance publication
Latendresse JR, Bucci TJ, Olson G, Mellick P, Weiss C, Thorn B, et al. 2009. Genistein and ethinyl estradiol dietary exposures in multigenerational and chronic studies induce similar poliferative lesions in mammary gland of male Sprague-Dawley rats. Reprod Toxicol; doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2009.04.006 [Online 19 April 2009].
Journal article—published online only
Glas AM, Floore A, Delahaye LJ, Witteveen AT, Pover RC, Bakx N, et al. 2006. Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics 7:278; doi:10.1186/1471-2164-7-278.
Journal article, “in press”
Holmes AK, Maisonet M, Rubin C, Kieszak S, Barr DB, Calafat AM, et al. In press. A pilot study of exposures to endocrine-disrupting compounds in pregnant women and children from the United Kingdom. Int J Child Adolesc Health.
Article in non-English language
Rateau JG, Broillard M, Morgant G, Aymard P. 1986. Etude experimental chez le lapin de l’effet de la cholestyramine dans le traitement des diarrhees infectieuses d’orgine cholerique [in French]. Actualite Therapeut 22:289–296.
Grant M. 1997. The cell from hell. People, 19 May:101–103.
Clabby C. 2001. Study details how centuries of fishing depleted sea life. News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) 27 July: B1.
Luna LG. 1968. Manual of Histopathologic Staining Methods of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. 3rd ed. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Gross TL, Ihrke PJ, Walder EJ, eds. 1992. Veterinary Dermatopathology. St. Louis, MO:Mosby Year Book.
Chapter in edited book
Gurevitch J, Hedges LV. 1993. Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. In: The Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments (Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J, eds). New York:Chapman & Hall, 378–398.
Book chapter, “in press”
McCoy KA, Guillette LJ. In press. Endocrine disruptors. In: Amphibian Biology. Vol 8. Conservation and Decline of Amphibians (Heatwole HF, ed). Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia:Surrey Beatty & Sons.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1993. Cadmium and cadmium compounds. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Hum 58:119–237.
Agency as author
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2005. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta, GA:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available:http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/ [accessed 14 January 2010].
Ibrahim K. 1994. The status of marine turtle conservation in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Proceedings of the first ASEAN Symposium Workshop on Marine Turtle Conservation, 6–10 December 1993, Manila, Philippines (Nacu A, Trono R, Palma JA, Torres D, Agas F Jr, eds). Manila, Philippines:ASEAN, 87–103.
NTP. 2006. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Bromodichloromethane (CAS No. 75-27-4) in Male F344/N Rats and Female B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies). TR 532. Research Triangle Park, NC:National Toxicology Program.
Gelobter M. 1993. Race, Class, and Outdoor Air Pollution: The Dynamics of Environmental Discrimination from 1970 to 1990 [PhD Dissertation]. Berkeley, CA:University of California, Berkeley.
SAS Institute Inc. 2001. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 8. Cary, NC:SAS Institute, Inc.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2003. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Homepage. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm [accessed 6 August 2008].
National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2011. PubMed. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ [accessed 14 July 2011].
Barbeito AG, Guelfi N, Varga MR, Pehar M, Beckman J, Barbeito L, et al. 2005. Chronic low-level lead exposure increases survival of G93A SOD-1 transgenic mice [Abstract]. In: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Beyond the Motor Neuron. Available: http://iibce.edu.uy/ALSmeeting/abstract.htm [accessed 14 April 2008].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National primary drinking water regulations. Arsenic and clarifications to compliance and new source contaminants monitoring. Final rule. Fed Reg 66:6076–7066.
Executive order; federal regulation
Clinton WJ. 2000. Executive Order 13148. Greening of the government through leadership in environmental management. Fed Reg 65:24595–24606.
U.S. Government document
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. EPA/600/P-99/002aF. Research Triangle Park, NC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
State of Maryland. 1998. Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998. Annapolis, MD:General Assembly.
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. 1996. Public Law 104-170.
Leach v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 2002. Civil Action No. 01-C-608, 2002 WL 1270121. Circuit Court of Wood County, West Virginia, 10 April 2002.
All nonstandard abbreviations [e.g., organochlorine (OC) pesticides, limit of detection (LOD), polymerase chain reaction (PCR)] and abbreviations for elements (e.g., Fe, Cu, Ag) and chemical compounds [e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), carbon dioxide (CO2)] should be defined in the text on first use and abbreviated thereafter.
Standard abbreviations, which do not need to be defined, are shown below. Units of measure should be abbreviated only when a specific amount is given (e.g., “concentration of 10 ng/mL” versus “units of nanograms per milliliter”).
|amu||atomic mass unit|
|ATP||adenosine 5´- triphosphate|
|df||degrees of freedom|
|ELISA||enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent assay|
|g||gravity (10,000 x g)|
|Gy||gray (unit of absorbed dose of ionizing radiation)|
|HEPES||N-2-hydroxyethylpiperazine-N´-2-ethane sulfonic acid|
|HPLC||high-performance liquid chromatography|
|ppb||parts per billion|
|ppm||parts per million|
|ppt||parts per trillion|
|SDS/PAGE||sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis|
|SE||standard error, standard error of the mean|
Last updated: 1 July 2015