Author Guidelines

The SAGR and its Editors are fully committed to ethical publication practice. SAGR supports the practical application of ethical standards that are consistent throughout all scholarly publications. SAGR follows closely the standards and guidelines for best practices set by the Directory of Open Access Journals DOAJ and Committee on Publication Ethics COPE and other industry associations. The subtopics below outline the ethical publication practice followed by SAGR. Manuscript template can be found here

                                                                        Publication and Authorship

The published articles are to be original, not submitted elsewhere and not under consideration with any other publication outlet. No part of the articles shall contain fraudulent information/data, neither shall articles be construed as been malicious to individuals, groups and organisations, in any form. Proof of consent have to be obtained for any named individuals, groups or organisations. Due permission are to be received for any third party material before they are published.

Authorship is limited to persons that have made substantial contribution to the paper. The corresponding Author must have obtained permission from all contributors for each version of the paper submitted for review and for any authorship changes. The corresponding Author is to ensure that no one has been ‘gifted’ authorship or denied credit as an author. In multi-authored papers, it is important that all authors that have made a significant contribution to the paper are listed. Those who provided support but have not contributed to the research should be acknowledged in an Acknowledgement section. The Acknowledgement section should also contain information on any financial support or grant in aid for the research work being published.


Submissions are assessed by the Editorial Board and are subject to external peer review using the single blind method whereby the authors are blinded to the identity of the reviewers and editors.

Papers are seen by editors prior to being sent to full peer review, and those that are not in the remit of the journal or that do not meet the standards of science required may be rejected without full review. The journal aims to have each paper that passes this triage stage reviewed by 2 independent peer reviewers.

The journal aims to return a decision on a peer-reviewed paper in less than a month.

 Before submitting

  • Scope – Please ensure your article meets the scope of the journal.

  • Approval – Ensure all authors have seen and approved the final version of the article prior to submission and are aware it is being submitted to SAGR

  • Ethical compliance – Ensure you have included all relevant ethical approval statements.

  • Reported data – Data accuracy is crucial. Authors are strongly encouraged to double-check all reported data for accuracy and to confirm that all units of measurement are correct and consistent.

  • Author list – All authors must be listed on the title page and entered on the Manuscripts submission in the correct order. Ensure all author email addresses provided are valid. Author information entered into Manuscripts will be used to generate indexing listings for published papers.

  • Cover letter – This optional letter should introduce your paper and outline why your work is important and suitable for publication at this time.

  • English language – Non-native English speakers are encouraged to have their manuscript professionally edited before submission. 

Author email addresses

The journal requires an institutional email address is associated with the account of both the submitting author and corresponding author; please edit the associated submission accounts to include this before pressing 'submit'. Alternatively please provide an explanation as to why this is not available to the Editorial Office by contacting

Manuscript formatting

SAGR offers a flexible submission process for first time submissions wherein authors can submit in any recognisable manuscript format, but should be complete such that editors and peer reviewers may easily assess the scientific merit of the study.

Revisions, where invited, should follow the standard SAGR formatting outlined below, using the highlighter function to indicate changes, and should be accompanied by a full response letter to editor and reviewer comments.

Accepted file types:

  • Please be aware that the combined size of your files should not exceed 40 MB.

  • For article text: txt, doc, docx, rtf. We are unable to accept pdf files for article text for revised manuscripts, but can do so for first submissions.

  • For figures: eps, tiff, jpg.

Research papers

Research paper submissions should be limited to 5000 words. We recommend a maximum of 60 references, with 3–6 figures, illustrations and tables.

1. Title page

Include a separate title page with:

  • Title (maximum 85 characters, including spaces)

  • All authors' names and full addresses

  • Corresponding author’s postal and email address

  • A short title (maximum 46 characters, including spaces)

  • A minimum of four keywords describing the manuscript

  • Word count of the full article, excluding references and figure legends

2. Abstract

The abstract should be no more than 250 words in length. Please divide up your abstract using the headings Objective (giving the context of the study), Methods, Results, Conclusions and Significance. Avoid abbreviations and references in this section.

The mandatory significance statement allows authors to share their perspective on the wider impact of their work, including where this work adds to existing knowledge in the field.

3. Graphical Abstract

Authors are encouraged to submit a graphical abstract with their manuscript. Graphical abstracts are peer-reviewed images which summarise the contents of the article in a concise, visual format. Graphical abstracts are not required, but are encouraged as they aid understanding and can be a useful device for sharing and promoting your research.

A graphical abstract should be submitted as a single file. The image should be original and created by the authors. Use of software such as BioRender is recommended. No element or part of the graphical abstract should be modified or adapted from copyrighted work. Do not include additional text within the image file. Do not use unnecessary white space or a heading ‘Graphical Abstract’ within the image file.

Image size: The image should be a minimum of 500 x 1300 pixels (height x width) or a square of 1200 pixels at a resolution of 300 dpi.

Font: Please use Arial, Helvetica or Courier in a font size of 8 pt.
Colour: Use of colour is encouraged. Colour figures should be in CMYK format.
File Type: tiff, jpg, eps or pdf

4. Introduction

The introduction should set the study in context by briefly reviewing relevant knowledge of the subject; follow this with a concise statement of the hypothesis and objectives of the study. The introduction should rarely exceed 3 pages of double-spaced text.

5. Materials and methods

Provide sufficient information for other workers to repeat the study. If well-established methods are used give a reference to the technique and provide full details of any modifications.

  • Include the source of chemicals, reagents and hormones and give the manufacturer’s name in parentheses. Studies of indeterminate mixtures of natural products will not be considered for publication.

  • Give the generic name, dose and route of administration for drugs.

  • If studies use undefined kits as a primary assay for redox-related changes, then these must be validated with other methods.

  • Specify the composition of buffers, solutions and culture media.

  • Use SI symbols, give concentrations in mol/L and define the term % as w/v or v/v for all solutions. For international units use IU (U should be used for enzyme activity).

  • Specify the type of equipment (microscopes/objective lenses, cameras, detectors) used to obtain images.

  • RT-PCR methods should broadly follow the MIQE guidelines, see and Bustin et al 2009 Clin Chem 55:611-622.

  • The EQUATOR network provides a database of reporting guidelines, aiming to improve the reliability of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting. Authors may find this a useful resource.

  • Specify any image acquisition software used, and give a description of specialised techniques requiring large amounts of processing, such as confocal, deconvolution, 3D reconstructions, or surface and volume rendering.

6. Results

The results should read as a narrative leading the reader through the experiments and investigations performed. Referencing and mention of others studies is permitted in the Results section where necessary or helpful.

7. Discussion

Should not simply re-state results, but should put them in the broader context and highlight the importance and novelty of the work.

8. Declaration of interest, Funding, Contributions and Acknowledgements

Declaration of interest
Actual or perceived conflicts of interest for all authors must be declared in full.
Please either (a) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported; or (b) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

  • Employment and consultancies

  • Grants, fees and honoraria

  • Ownership of stock or shares

  • Royalties

  • Patents (pending and actual)

  • Board membership


Please detail all of the sources of funding relevant to the research reported in the following format:
This work was supported by the Medical Research Council (grant numbers xxxx, yyyy); the Wellcome Trust (grant number xxxx); and Tommy’s Baby charity (grant number xxxx).

Where research has not been funded please state the following:
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.

Author contribution statement (compulsory)
Please include a statement concisely specifying the contribution of each co-author. Use author initials to indicate contributions, for example:
AB conceived the study and wrote the paper. CD performed experiments and analysed data.

Please be as brief as possible.

9. References

All references cited in the text must be included in the reference list and vice versa. However, if a reference consists of only a web address do not include it in the reference list but cite it in the text, giving the date the page was accessed.

Unpublished work
Any unpublished work (personal communications, manuscripts in preparation and manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted for publication) must be referred to in the text and not listed in the references.

Give the full list of authors, including their initials. For example:
(A Stone, Y Li & MR Smith, unpublished observations)
(J Brown, personal communication)

Articles accepted for publication but not yet published may be listed as ‘in press’ in the reference list, using the current year as the publication year. If an ‘in press’ article is included in the Accepted Preprint service or a similar scheme, then the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) should be included; otherwise, provide a copy of the article as a supplementary file for reviewing purposes.

In the text
Cite references in the text using the authors’ names and publication year. Use et al. for articles with more than two authors. Where there are several citations, list them in chronological order.

In the reference list
List references in alphabetical order. Give articles by the same author in the order:

  • Single author

  • Two authors alphabetically according to the name of the second author

  • Three or more authors chronologically, with a, b and c etc for articles published in the same year, in the order in which they are cited in the text

List all authors in each reference in the reference list; do not use et al. in the reference list.

Reference in the following format:
See RH, Calvo D, Shi Y, Kawa H, Luke MP & Yuan Z 2001 Stimulation of p300-mediated transcription by the kinase MEKK1. Journal of Biological Chemistry 27616310–16317.
Harvey SS 1975 Hypnotics and sedatives. The barbiturates. In The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, edn 5, pp 102–123. Eds LS Goodman & A Gilman. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. 

Please use Harvard style (Author, Year). Do not use an Endnote style which abbreviates the reference list in your submitted article.

10. Tables

Tables should be concise.

  • Number tables in the order they are cited in the text

  • Include a title – a single sentence at the head of the table that includes the name of the organism studied

  • Use footnotes to provide any additional explanatory material, cross-referenced to the column entries

  • Give a short heading for each column

  • Do not use internal horizontal or vertical lines, colour or shading

  • Explain all abbreviations used in the table in the footnotes.

Please note that the option to incorporate large tables in a final article is subject to editorial approval. If the tables are deemed too large for the final article, you will be asked to publish your tables as supplementary data.

11. Figures

The journal has produced digital image guidelines in order to clarify the standards expected by the journal. All submitted digital images must adhere to these guidelines.

  • Number figures in the order they are cited in the text

  • Include legends to all figures, giving the figure number, keys to any symbols used, the name of the organism studied, the names of any statistical tests used and the probability levels used for comparisons

  • Label figure sections as A, B etc in the top left-hand corner

  • Use Arial or a similar sans-serif font for text labels

  • Do not enclose figures in boxes

  • Indicate magnification by a scale bar in the bottom right-hand corner of the image and give the measurement in the legend

  • Use the preferred symbols of closed and open circles, squares and triangles. Ensure that symbols are large enough to be read clearly when the figure is reduced for publication

  • Use Courier or a similar non-proportional font for amino acid, DNA, RNA and PCR primer sequences and highlight sections of homology between sequences with grey shading.

There are no charges for colour figures.


The format of review articles is more fluid but should include the following:

1. Title page

Include a separate title page with:

  • Title (maximum 85 characters, including spaces)

  • All authors' names and full addresses

  • Corresponding author’s postal and email address

  • Word count of the full article, excluding references and figure legends

2. Abstract

The abstract should be no more than 250 words in length. Avoid abbreviations and references in this section.

3. Text

  • Introduction

  • Sections (with headings and sub-headings)

  • Conclusions and/or future perspectives

4. Acknowledgements (optional)

5. References, Tables, Figures and relative legends: same instructions as for Research articles (see above)

Review submissions should be limited to 6000 words, , excluding references and figure legends. Mini reviews of approximately 3000 words are acceptable. We recommend a maximum of 60 references for review articles, with 2–6 figures and tables. Original summary diagrams and illustrations of proposed models (in colour where appropriate) are encouraged, as is a graphical abstract. Line drawings may be redrawn. Boxes can be used to separate detailed explanations and background information from the main part of the text.

Systematic reviews and meta analyses must be registered with Prospero and should adhere to their inclusion criteria. The Prospero record should be cited in your submission, further information on how to do this can be found in the link given above.

If you would like to submit a review please email the editorial office with a brief outline (0.5–1 page) of your topic.

Brief Communications

Brief Communications are concise, focused reports of original research, in any of basic, translational, pre-clinical or clinical research, which have at least some therapeutic relevance as per the scope. They can be sub-analyses or updates of previously published research, small studies and pilot studies. They should briefly summarise the results of original data. Observational studies in the pre-clinical and clinical setting are suitable for publication. Reviews and opinion pieces are not considered for publication under this category.

Brief Communications should not exceed 1500 words (not counting the author information, references or legend). Given the small maximum word count, they are not expected to contain detailed descriptions of methodological approaches used, nor extensive results or in-depth discussion, with results obtained using only one or two well-established methodologies.

Brief Communications should have a maximum of 20 references and up to three table or figure/graph. An abstract is not required; nor are specific sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) needed. Supplementary online content is allowed for brief additional and absolutely necessary methods, but not for any further results or discussion. Authors must meet all requirements regarding responsible conduct of research (e.g., appropriate IRB approval, data integrity, data retention). They should not be under consideration, submitted or published elsewhere in any form, in part or as whole.

Brief Communications are subject to peer review by an Associate Editor and at least one additional independent peer reviewer. The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision on publication.


Commentaries are typically invited by the Editor-in-Chief, although unsolicited commentaries will be considered. Commentaries are opinion articles that will examine novel concepts and findings introduced into the scientific record. They are typically no more than 2500 words in length, should have no more than eight references, and have no figures or tables.

Digital image integrity

Recognizing that the inappropriate use of computer software for digital image analysis and processing can raise concerns, the journal has produced the following requirements for the representation of research data:

  • No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed or introduced. The groupings of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields or exposures must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (eg using dividing lines) and in the text of the figure legend.

  • Adjustments of brightness, contrast or colour balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Nonlinear adjustments (eg changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend. Adjustments should be applied to the entire image.

  • Threshold manipulation, expansion or contraction of signal ranges and the altering of high signals should be avoided.

Statistical analysis

It is the author’s responsibility to document that the results are reproducible and that the differences found are not due to random variation. No absolute rules can be applied but, in general, quantitative data should be from no fewer than three replicate experiments. Appropriate statistical methods should be used to test the significance of differences in results. The term ‘significant’ should not be used unless statistical analysis was performed, and the probability value used to identify significance (eg P < 0.05) should be specified.


When several t-tests are employed, authors should be aware that nominal probability levels no longer apply. Accordingly, the multiple t-test, multiple range test or similar techniques to permit simultaneous comparisons should be employed. Also, in lieu of using several t-tests, it is often more appropriate to utilise an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to permit pooling of data, increase the number of degrees of freedom, and improve reliability of results. Authors should use appropriate nonparametric tests when the data depart substantially from a normal distribution.

In presenting results of linear regression analyses, it is desirable to show 95% confidence limits.

Bar charts are discouraged; scatter plots more faithfully describe the data being presented. When data points are fitted with lines, specify the method used for fitting (graphical, least squares, computer program). If differences in slopes and/or axis intercepts are claimed for plotted lines, these should be supported by statistical analysis.

Give sufficient details of the experimental design and analysis so that the reader can assess their adequacy and validity for testing the hypotheses of interest.

In particular:

  • Describe the numbers of experimental units used and the way in which they have been allocated to treatments

  • Justify the omission of any observations from the analysis

  • Describe methods of analysis precisely and state any necessary assumptions, as these may affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the experiment

Your article may be sent to the Statistical Advisor for comments.


Authors are entitled to appeal against a rejection decision made by a journal. Appeals should be submitted to the journal email address. We must receive your valid appeal within four weeks of the original decision, otherwise it will not be considered. An appeal is considered to be an extension of the peer review process and so you should not submit your article to another publication whilst an appeal is ongoing.

To be considered, appeals must directly address the reason(s) given for the initial rejection decision. If reviewer reports were included with the decision letter, then these criticisms must be responded to in the appeal, however you should not prepare and submit a revised version of your article with the appeal. Appeals that are received late, do not address reviewers’ criticisms, are dismissive of the reviewer comments, or contain offensive language will not be considered.

Valid appeals will be sent to a member of the journal’s Editorial Board for consideration. Where possible, an independent member of the Editorial Board who was not connected to the original decision will oversee the appeal.

If successful, an appeal may result in the decision being rescinded and a continuation of the peer-review process. If the appeal is rejected, then the original rejection decision is upheld and no further consideration of that article is possible.