Dr. Eliran Mor, MD

 Stewart, J. A., & Murdoch, A. P, British Fertility Society, & Association of Clinical Embryologists (2013). The collection of data on assisted reproduction treatments in the UK: recommendations by BFS and ACE. Human Fertility, 16(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2013.770239(open in a new window)

 Tan, B. K., & Mathur, R, British Fertility Society Policy and Practice Subcommittee (2013b). Management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome guidelines. Produced on behalf of the BFS Policy and Practice Committee. Human Fertility, 16(3), 160–161. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2013.788325(open in a new window)

 Tomlinson, M. J., Harbottle, S. J., Woodward, B. J., & Lindsay, K. S, Association of Biomedical Andrologists. (2012). Association of biomedical andrologists - laboratory andrology guidelines for good practice version 3 - 2012. Human Fertility, 15(4), 156–173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2012.747888(open in a new window)

 Wilde, R., McTavish, A., & Crawshaw, M. (2014). Family building using donated gametes and embryos in the UK: recommendations for policy and practice on behalf of the British Infertility Counselling Association and the British Fertility Society in collaboration with the Association of Clinical Embryologists and the Royal College of Nurses Fertility Nurses Forum. Human Fertility, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2013.862041(open in a new window)

 Wylie, K., Rees, M., Hackett, G., Anderson, R., Bouloux, P. M., Cust, M., Goldmeier, D., Kell, P., Terry, T., Trinick, T., & Wu, F. (2010). Androgens, health and sexuality in women and men. Human Fertility, 13(4), 277–297. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2010.530966(open in a new window)

 Yasmin, E., Balachandren, N., Davies, M. C., Jones, G. L., Lane, S., Mathur, R., Webber, L., & Anderson, R. A, British Fertility Society. (2018). Fertility preservation for medical reasons in girls and women: British fertility society policy and practice guideline. Human Fertility, 21(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1422297(open in a new window)

 Yasmin, E., Davies, M., Conway, G., & Balen, A. H, British Fertility Society (2013). British Fertility Society. 'Ovulation induction in WHO Type 1 anovulation: Guidelines for practice'. Produced on behalf of the BFS Policy and Practice Committee. Human Fertility, 16(4), 228–234. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2013.829673(open in a new window)

 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.

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

 The journal also requests that all authors identified as ‘corresponding authors’ create and link an ORCID iD with their account on ScholarOne prior to article acceptance. We also encourage contributing authors to associate an ORCID iD with their ScholarOne account. Author ORCID iDs will be displayed on the published article.

 The journal requires an institutional email address is associated with the account of both the submitting author and corresponding author; please edit the associated ScholarOne 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 raf@bioscientifica.com

 Reproduction and Fertility 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.

 The abstract should be a single paragraph of not more than 250 words, clearly stating the objective of the study, the methods used (where applicable), and summarizing results and conclusions. Avoid abbreviations and references in this section.

 The lay summary, with a maximum of 150 words, is intended for the general public or for those working outside of the immediate field, offering authors the opportunity to share their perspective on the wider impact of their work. As such, it needs to be accessible to all, explaining the general point(s) of the paper, and written without use of jargon; use of abbreviations is also strongly discouraged. The content of the summary must reflect the scientific content of the manuscript, explaining in lay words background and findings, including data, and possibly discussing the importance/consequences of the findings.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

Eliran Mor MD

 Please note that the option to print 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.

 Review submissions should be limited to 6000 words. 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. 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 here.

 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. Typically, they are no more than 2500 words in length, with no more than around eight references, with no figures unless illustrating an overview of the article, and with no tables.

 Research Letters are concise, focused reports of original research, in any of basic, translational, pre-clinical or clinical research. 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. Reviews, case reports and opinion pieces are not considered for publication under this category.

 Research Letters should not exceed 500 words (not counting the author information, references or legend) upon initial submission. 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.

 Research Letters should have a maximum of 5 references, up to 1 table or figure/graph, and up to 5 authors. An abstract is not required; nor are specific sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) needed. Authors are asked to include a Lay Summary, which will not count towards the 500 word limit (for full requirements see Research papers, Lay summary). Limited supplementary online content is allowed where absolutely necessary. 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.

 The editors will judge if the letter is of interest, making a highly relevant point. In this case, the authors of the article that the letter comments upon will be invited to respond to the letter. If they choose to respond (same length of up to 250 words), letter and reply to letter will be published at the same time.

 Protocol manuscripts should report planned or ongoing research studies, in the area of basic or clinical reproductive biology/fertility. Reproduction and Fertility will not publish protocols of studies where data collection has been completed. Submitted protocols will be considered on a case-by-case basis and not all submitted protocols will be suitable for publication in the journal.

 Below is an example of a vertically and horizontally cropped western blot. It was cropped around the band of the predicted size of a protein of interest and to only include a control and treatment group of interest:

 Below is the uncropped blot. You can see the shadow of the ladder on the left, the edges of the membrane and non-specific bands. Highlight in red are the regions show in the cropped image. Depending on the experimental context, the authors may need to explain the other bands or specificity of the antibody. If a membrane is cut to probe different proteins of different sizes, this should be indicated in the supplemental data legend.

 Authors must include a statement that consent has been obtained from each patient after full explanation of the purpose and nature of all procedures used. For research requiring ethics committee approval, please include a statement to this effect in the manuscript. Also indicate whether patient consent was obtained in line with the below policy. We will be unable to accept research papers without this statement.

 Where possible, identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Any identifiable patient must be shown the manuscript to be published before being asked to give consent. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available online or in print after publication. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. We no longer publish pictures with black bands across the eyes without a signed consent form, because bands fail to mask someone’s identity effectively.

 The patient (or parent or guardian) must give written informed consent for publication by signing our consent form. Signed consent forms should then be retained in the patient's clinical notes for future reference, and a copy should be made available for review by the Editor on request.

 The manuscript reporting this patient's details should state that 'Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient/parent/guardian/ relative of the patient'. If the patient is deceased the authors should seek permission from a relative and include a statement to this fact. If neither the patient or a relative can be traced, we can only publish if we are satisfied the information has been sufficiently anonymised, making it impossible to identify the patient with any certainty.

 Permission is not required to publish the 'recordings' listed below, provided that, the recordings are effectively anonymised by the removal of any identifying marks, and patient details (i.e. patient name, date of birth, name of hospital) from images before submission: