Skip to Main Content


Skip Nav Destination

About JEM

Aims and scope

Journal of Experimental Medicine (JEM) is a broad journal that publishes papers providing novel conceptual insight into immunology, cancer biology, vascular biology, microbial pathogenesis, neuroscience, and stem cell biology. We are interested in original findings on all aspects of disease pathogenesis, and we are happy to consider papers reporting novel therapeutic approaches. We strongly encourage submissions of human studies.


To warrant publication in JEM, a manuscript must provide novel research findings of broad interest and clear in vivo relevance. Biomedical studies immediately relevant to disease will receive high priority.

Manuscript types

Articles present comprehensive studies providing novel and significant insight into an area of interest to our general readership. Articles are fully documented reports of original research, but should be as concise as possible without compromising the documentation of the data. Manuscripts containing purely descriptive observations or reports of new techniques in the absence of new biological insights will not be considered. Articles should be no more than 40,000 characters (not including spaces, figure legends, methods, or references), with up to10 figures and/or tables. Articles may have up to five supplemental figures and references are unlimited.

Brief Definitive Reports (BDRs) are shorter than Articles and present observations of immediate impact. Findings suitable for BDRs include those that are definitive yet extremely surprising and hold the potential to initiate new avenues of research, those that answer long-standing open questions or settle controversies of broad interest, and those that provide a concise conceptual advance in a rapidly moving field. The length limit for BDRs is 20,000 characters (not including spaces, figure legends, methods, or references), with up to five figures and/or tables. BDRs may have up to three supplemental figures and references are unlimited. For BDRs, the Results and Discussion sections should be combined.

Technical Advances and Resources are primary research studies reporting a novel technique or dataset that advances pre-clinical or clinical research and is of immediate value to our broad readership. Manuscripts containing purely descriptive reports of new techniques in the absence of new biological insights will not be considered. Validation of the new technique and demonstration of its advantage over existing approaches should be provided. For datasets, authors must provide a compelling proof of principle that analysis of the dataset yields novel biological insights. The length limit for Technical Advances and Resources is 40,000 characters (not including spaces, figure legends, methods, or references), with up to 10 figures and/or tables. Technical Advances and Resources may have up to five supplemental figures and references are unlimited.

Front matter formats

Most front matter in JEM is commissioned by the editors. However, we do accept proposals for the following formats.

Reviews are peer-reviewed, comprehensive overviews on a topic of interest to the broad JEM readership. Reviews are usually 6,000–7,000 words in length and include three to four figures/tables. The number of references is unlimited.

Perspectives are also commissioned by the editors and are peer reviewed. Perspectives are similar to Reviews but provide a more opinionated expert analysis of a scientific topic. Perspectives should not exceed 3,000 words in length and should include up to three figures/tables. The number of references is unlimited.

Insights highlight primary research articles published in JEM and are not peer reviewed. Most Insights are commissioned, but unsolicited proposals will be considered. Insights may be up to 1,500 words in length, with no more than 15 references and one figure.

Viewpoint articles put forth original opinions and hypotheses on a broad array of topics, ranging from disease pathogenesis to current affairs in scientific research.  These forward-looking articles are intended to encourage discussions and chart new research directions.  Viewpoints are ~1,500 words in length, with no more than 15 references and can include one figure.

Found in Translation articles establish a personal point of view on translational science, ranging from specific technologies and diseases to macro trends. These articles are intended to stir the Biotech/Pharma field, encourage discussions, and chart new lines of research. Found in Translation are 1,500 words in length, with no more than 15 references and can include up to one figure or table.

Editorial process

At JEM, all editorial decisions on research manuscripts are made through collaborative consultation between in-house professional scientific editors and the academic editors. We strive to provide exceptional service to our authors by ensuring timely, objective, and rigorous decision making.

Upon submission, manuscripts are reviewed by at least one in-house scientific editor and one academic editor for general suitability and strength of advance. An initial decision is usually reached within one week.

We take requests for exclusions seriously and honor these requests whenever possible. Please note, however, that we may not honor requests for exclusion of our academic editors. The assignment of an academic editor is solely at the discretion of the in-house scientific editors, and academic editors do not act as external reviewers. Editors recuse themselves from the evaluation process when there is a conflict of interest.

If sent for external review, each manuscript is reviewed by several leading scientists in the relevant field. Decisions on reviewed manuscripts are usually reached within one month.

When submission of a revised manuscript is invited following external review, there is no deadline for resubmission. However, the novelty and priority will be reassessed accordingly, and the manuscript may be sent to the original reviewers and/or new reviewers. In an effort to expedite publication, only one major revision of each paper will be considered.

Authors can appeal editorial decisions through the online manuscript submission system. They may also transfer their manuscript, reviewer comments, and reviewer identities to another journal through our transfer system (see our Transfer policy). Reviewers may opt out of having their identity transferred.

Manuscripts submitted by the academic editors

Papers submitted by academic editors undergo external peer review and are handled solely by JEM scientific editors with input from a designated monitoring editor within the JEM advisory editorial board, as needed.

Editorial board

The JEM academic editorial board is comprised of 14 leading scientists representing the main research areas within the scope of the journal. In collaboration with scientific editors, academic editors are responsible for making timely, thoughtful, and objective editorial decisions on manuscripts in their research area. All members of the academic editorial board are added and renewed by the Executive Editor and board Co-Chairs.

Board Co-Chairs serve as representatives of the academic editorial board and function as the first point of contact for the Executive Editor on setting journal strategy and editorial policies.

In addition to the editorial board, JEM has an advisory editorial board constituted by over 100 prominent experts in research fields covered by the journal. Advisory editors provide a great contribution to the journal by serving as reviewers or designated monitoring editors.

Reviewer guidelines

Reviewers are to contact the editor to discuss any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting an invitation to peer review a manuscript. Reviewers are asked to comment on the level of conceptual advance and broad interest, as well as the technical rigor, statistical analysis, and presentation of the manuscript. Your perspective on the manuscript is valued. We ask that reviewers provide references where possible when describing overlap between the current manuscript under consideration and past work done in the field, particularly when such overlap is suggested to undermine the novelty of the work under consideration.

Reviewers are expected to provide critical yet respectful comments for authors.

Reviewers are to treat information from an unpublished manuscript as confidential at all times.

Reviewers are prohibited from uploading or sharing a manuscript to natural language processors, large language models, or other generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies for analyzing and formulating peer review reports. Doing so represents a breach of confidentiality.

If a reviewer needs advice from a colleague or collaborator while peer reviewing a manuscript, they should contact the editor in advance. Co-reviewing manuscripts with trainees (graduate students and postdocs) is allowed. However, this is to be indicated in the confidential comments to the editor, and we expect that the senior reviewer has independently evaluated the manuscript and approved the final comments.

We feel consistency in peer review is important; therefore, we request that reviewers commit to reviewing future versions of the manuscript if needed.

RUP collects voluntary self-disclosure of demographic information by authors, reviewers, and editors. The gender and race/ethnicity data are aggregated, and the information is used for demographic statistical reporting. By completing these fields, you help us to identify inequity in science and promote diversity. These questions adhere to the Joint Commitment for Action and Diversity in Publishing, a collective action among publishing organizations to set a new standard to ensure a more inclusive and diverse culture within scholarly publishing.

We encourage all reviewers to take advantage of features that allow them to receive credit for their contributions:

Reviewers have the choice to allow RUP to post verified reviewer credit to their ORCID records. Researchers who have created ORCID iDs can make the activity visible on their public ORCID records. Learn more about ORCID.

RUP assists in posting verified reviewer credit seamlessly to the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service for those who provide RUP and Web of Science permission to do so. The free service allows reviewers to record, verify, and publicly showcase their peer review contributions across publishers and journals. Through the platform, reviewers can download their contributions in a format that they can include in job and funding applications.

Please note that titles of the articles reviewed do not appear. Participation in both ORCID and Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service is voluntary. RUP does not share information without consent per our privacy policy.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal