Author Guidelines

FORMATING

We do not want author spend too much time in formating. We use fluid formating mean any format is accepted as long as acceptable for scientific literature.  Please refer to each type of article for further insight.

We only request you to arrange the reference style to Vancouver format.

The image or any copyright has to be disclosed.

 

Editorial policies

As part of academic society, Sustainability and Social Impact follows common policies as detailed via the menu on the left that our authors and prospective authors must follow.

In particular, when you submit a manuscript to Sustainability and Social Impact its content must not significantly overlap with any other papers from you or your co-authors groups that are under consideration or in press at other journals, with the exception of conference abstracts.

If you submit a related manuscript to any other journals while the submission to Sustainability and Social Impact is under consideration, you must send us a copy of the related manuscript and details of its progress towards publication. We reserve the right to decline publication of a paper even after it has been accepted if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems with the scientific content or violations of our publishing policies.

Type of Articles

1. Research Articles (length limit: 10,000 word-equivalents). Research articles must report original research that is expected to have a definable impact on the advancement of sustainable field. We welcome rigorous scholarship on complex sustainable research in many angles. The journal also publishes articles that describe significant scientific advances or novel technologies for facilitating the solutions of sustainable development and practice.  Authors are also expected to provide an explanation in their cover letter why they believe the manuscript belongs in our journal and why their research will interest our readers with an emphasis on the novelty and sustainable relevance of the contribution. Here is the sample.

2. News & Views is news style or science journalism and communication style article. News & Views articles inform readers about the latest advances in sustainability research, as reported in recently published papers or at scientific meetings. They might also contains current government policy related to the sustainability research. They may be linked to articles in Sustainable & Social Impact, or they may focus on papers of exceptional significance that are published elsewhere. Unsolicited contributions will not normally be considered, although prospective authors are welcome to make proposals to the handling editor. News & Views are not peer reviewed.

3. The Reviews type in Sustainability and Social Impact is an authorative, balance and literature survey of development in the research field. The reviews aim to be balanced and objective analyses of the selected topic - with descriptions of relevant scientific literature and discussions that are easy to grasp for recent graduates in any sustainable related discipline, as well as informing principal investigators and industry-based research scientists of the latest advances. Reviews should provide the authors' insight into future directions and their opinion of the major challenges faced by researchers in the field.  Here is the sample.

4. Perspectives (length limit: 4,000 word-equivalents) are personal reviews of a field or area, and they are focused, rather than comprehensive. Perspective authors are asked to assess the current status of a chosen field with an emphasis toward identifying key progress being made and research that is needed to advance a sub-discipline, theory, or technology. Perspectives should be based on scientifically sound statements with sufficient references and scientific underpinning to substantiate the views expressed. Perspectives will undergo peer review.  Perspective articles can be submitted directly through the submission site without prior approval. Corresponding authors of accepted articles will also be requested to provide a short biography (up to 200 words) and headshot for inclusion at the end of the published article. Model release and copyright forms are required for author photographs and will be provided by the Journal office.

5. Comment articles are opinionated pieces that focus on a hot and topical issue in sustainability research, or in relevant policy and societal debates. The topic is not limited only to the sustainable science as a subject but also to the researchers itself and their well being. These pieces are intended to be agenda-setting, authoritative and informed, and can be provocative articles calling for action on timely issues pertaining to the environmental, social, engineering and policy dimensions of sustainability. If so, they must road-map a proposed solution in detail, not simply snapshot a problem. The length limit is 1,000 words, author affiliations, 5 references  and maximum 1 single-frame figure with 50-word caption OR a 350-word table.

6. Editorials are articles related to the our editorial policy or the editor respond to the current situation related to the sustainability research correspond to our journal aims.

7. Features is a typical Account discussing a topic of intense interest to the author and focuses primarily on the authors own experimental or theoretical results. Unpublished data may be included, but only to a minor extent. Articles should present salient experimental discoveries and theoretical results, interpret their significance, establish perspective with respect to earlier work and to contemporary research by other investigators, evaluate the present state of the subject, and cast a glance to the future. A good introduction, including a historical orientation, is critical. Terms and concepts unique to the research area must be carefully explained or defined. A short section of concluding remarks should discuss the broader significance of the work, view it in perspective, and mention applications or future prospects. We look with favor on styles of presentation somewhat less formal than those that prevail in much scientific writing. Comprehensive reviews should submitted as Reviews. Here is the sample.

8. Correspondence manuscripts with length limit: 2,000 word-equivalents each including citations provide scholarly comment on papers appearing in the research section. Correspondence should be submitted within twelve months of the publication date of the original paper and must raise substantive scientific or technical questions. Well-justified exceptions to this timeframe will also be considered. Correspondence that consists mainly of opinion will not be considered. The author(s) of the original paper will be given an opportunity to prepare a response within one month of receiving the Correspondence.  Correspondence on previously published Correspondence will not be considered, and personal invective will not be tolerated. Correspondence may undergo peer review at the determination of the assigned editor. The correspondence and the rebuttal will be published consecutively in the same issue.

Authorship

Authorship provides credit for a researcher's contributions to a study and carries accountability. Authors are expected to fulfil the criteria below (adapted from McNutt et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Feb 2018, 201715374; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115; licensed under CC BY 4.0):

Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it.

AND to have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study).

AND to have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Our journals encourage collaboration with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfil all authorship criteria described above. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of authorship carries with its accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript.

Our journals reserve the right not to consider non-primary research manuscripts that have been authored by medical writers. Writing assistance should be acknowledged in all article types.

Our journals do not require all authors of a research paper to sign the letter of submission, nor do they impose an order on the list of authors. Submission to our journal is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed all the contents, including the author list and author contribution statements. The corresponding author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been reached that all authors have agreed to be so listed, and have approved the manuscript submission to the journal, and for managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication. The corresponding author is also responsible for submitting a competing interests' statement on behalf of all authors of the paper.

It is expected that the corresponding author (and on multi-group collaborations, at least one member of each collaborating group, usually the most senior member of each submitting group or team, who accepts responsibility for the contributions to the manuscript from that team) will be responsible for the following with respect to data, code and materials: (adapted from McNutt et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Feb 2018, 201715374; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115; licensed under CC BY 4.0):

• ensuring that data, materials, and code comply with transparency and reproducibility standards of the field and journal.
• ensuring that original data/materials/code upon which the submission is based are preserved following best practices in the field so that they are retrievable for reanalysis.
• confirming that data/materials/code presentation accurately reflects the original.
• foreseeing and minimizing obstacles to the sharing of data/materials/code described in the work.
• ensuring that all authors (or group leaders in multi-lab collaborations) have certified the author list and author contributions.

At submission, the corresponding author must include written permission from the authors of the work concerned for mention of any unpublished material cited in the manuscript (for example others' data, in press manuscripts, personal communications or work in preparation). The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript (such as figures) that has been published previously elsewhere and provide written permission from authors of the prior work and/or publishers, as appropriate, for the re-use of such material.

After acceptance, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content in the proof, including the names of co-authors, addresses and affiliations.

After publication, the corresponding author is the point of contact for queries about the published paper. It is their responsibility to inform all co-authors of any matters arising in relation to the published paper and to ensure such matters are dealt with promptly. Authors of published material have a responsibility to inform the journal immediately if they become aware of any aspects that requires correction.

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author. Our journal editors are not in a position to investigate or adjudicate authorship disputes before or after publication. Such disagreements, if they cannot be resolved amongst authors, should be directed to the relevant institutional authority.

The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may also be stated. We remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Authorship: inclusion & ethics in global research

Our journals encourage collaboration with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfill all authorship criteria described above.  Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.  We urge researchers to carefully consider researcher contributions and authorship criteria when involved in multi-region collaborations involving local researchers so as to promote greater equity in research collaborations.   

We encourage researchers to follow the recommendations set out in the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings when designing, executing and reporting their research and to provide a disclosure statement in their manuscript that covers the aspects listed below (drawn from the Global Code of Conduct)  Editors may at their discretion ask authors to provide a disclosure statement taking these questions into account; the disclosure can be requested during peer review, shared with reviewers and published in the final paper as an “Ethics & Inclusion statement” in the Methods section.
 

1. Has the research included local researchers throughout the research process – study design, study implementation, data ownership, intellectual property, and authorship of publications?
2. Is the research locally relevant and has this been determined in collaboration with local partners?
3. Please describe whether roles and responsibilities were agreed amongst collaborators ahead of the research and whether any capacity-building plans for local researchers were discussed.
4. Would this research have been severely restricted or prohibited in the setting of the researchers? If yes, please provide details on specific exceptions granted for this research in agreement with local stakeholders.
5. Where appropriate, has the study been approved by a local ethics review committee? If not, please explain the reasons.
6. Where animal welfare regulations, environmental protection and biorisk-related regulations in the local research setting were insufficient compared to the setting of the researchers, please describe if research was undertaken to the higher standards.
7. Does the research result in stigmatization, incrimination, discrimination, or otherwise personal risk to participants? If yes, describe provisions to ensure safety and well- being of participants.
8. If research involves health, safety, security, or other risk to researchers, describe any risk management plans undertaken.
9. Have any benefit sharing measures been discussed in case biological materials, cultural artefacts or associated traditional knowledge has been transferred out of the country?
10. Please indicate if you have taken local and regional research relevant to your study into account in citations.

Consortia authorship

A collective of authors can be listed as a consortium. If necessary, individual authors can be listed in both the main author list and as a member of a consortium. All authors within a consortium must be listed at the end of the paper. If it is necessary to include a list of consortium members that did not directly contribute to the paper, this list can be placed in the Supplementary Information. To facilitate submission of manuscripts with large author lists, please consult the journal editor before submission.

Author contribution statements

Our journals encourage transparency by publishing author contribution statements. Authors are required to include a statement of responsibility in the manuscript, including review-type articles, that specifies the contribution of every author. The level of detail varies; some disciplines produce manuscripts that comprise discrete efforts readily articulated in detail, whereas other fields operate as group efforts at all stages. Author contribution statements are included in the published paper.

Our journals also allow one set of co-authors to be specified as having contributed equally to the work and one set of co-authors to be specified as having jointly supervised the work. Other equal contributions are best described in author contribution statements. Corresponding authors have specific responsibilities (described above). Prease refer to CRediT system for author contribution statement. For more information about the CRediT.

Author identification

As part of our efforts to improve transparency and unambiguous attribution of scholarly contributions, corresponding authors of published papers is encouraged to provide their Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) iD; co-authors are encouraged to provide ORCiD iDs.

Author name change

An author who has changed their name for reasons such as religious conversion may request for their name, pronouns and other relevant biographical information to be corrected on papers published prior to the change. The author can choose for this correction to happen silently, in which case there will be no note flagging the change on either the pdf or the html of the paper, or alternatively they may do so by a formal public Author Correction.

Our journals' editorials policy follows:

• New framework aims to improve inclusion and ethics in global research collaborations amid wider efforts to end exploitative practices. Nature addresses helicopter research and ethics dumping, June 2022.
• Corresponding authors should not neglect their responsibility to a journal or their co-authors. Nature Nanotechnology. A matter of duty, December 2012.
• Why do we need statements to define the contributions made by each author? Nature Photonics.Contributors, guests, and ghosts, June 2012.
• Announcing "author contributions" statements, 2009: 
  • Nature Nanotechnology.The responsibilities of authors.
  • Nature Cell Biology.Attribution and accountability.
  • Nature Physics. What did you do?
  • Nature Photonics. Combating plagiarism.
  • Authorship policies.
• Individual contributions should be carefully evaluated when compiling the author list of a scientific paper. Nature Materials.Authorship matters, February 2008.
• How the responsibilities of co-authors for a scientific paper's integrity could be made more explicit. Nature. Who is accountable?1 November 2007.
• The problems of unjustified authorship. Nature Materials. Authorship without authorization, November 2004.

We are encouraging authors of papers to say who did what.

Competing interests

In the interests of transparency and to help readers form their own judgements of potential bias, our journals require authors to declare any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in relation to the work described. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a competing interests' statement on behalf of all authors of the paper.

Definition

For the purposes of this policy, competing interests are defined as financial and non-financial interests that could directly undermine, or be perceived to undermine the objectivity, integrity, and value of a publication, through a potential influence on the judgements and actions of authors with regard to objective data presentation, analysis and interpretation.

Financial competing interests include any of the following:

Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses) by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication. A specific role for the funder in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, should be disclosed.

Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.

Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration (including reimbursements for attending symposia) from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications (awarded or pending) filed by the authors or their institutions whose value may be affected by publication. For patents and patent applications, disclosure of the following information is requested: patent applicant (whether author or institution), name of inventor(s), application number, status of application, specific aspect of manuscript covered in patent application.

It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest become significant but note that many US universities require faculty members to disclose interests exceeding $10,000 or 5% equity in a company (see, for example, B. Lo et al. New Engl. J. Med. 343, 1616-1620; 2000). Any such figure is necessarily arbitrary, so we offer as one possible practical alternative guideline: "Any undeclared competing financial interests that could embarrass you were they to become publicly known after your work was published."

We do not consider diversified mutual funds or investment trusts to constitute a competing financial interest.

Non-financial competing interests:

Non-financial competing interests can take different forms, including personal or professional relations with organizations and individuals. We would encourage authors and referees to declare any unpaid roles or relationships that might have a bearing on the publication process. Examples of non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):

• Unpaid membership in a government or non-governmental organization
• Unpaid membership in an advocacy or lobbying organization
• Unpaid advisory position in a commercial organization
• Writing or consulting for an educational company
• Acting as an expert witness

Application to authors

Authors must disclose and specify any competing interest during the submission process, via declarations in the manuscript submission system. Authors can use comment for editor box to disclose their any competing interest. The corresponding author is responsible for providing a declaration on behalf of all authors.

For peer reviewed contributions, authors' declarations are disclosed to peer reviewers in full. However, if authors have opted for double-blind peer review, during the peer review process reviewers will be provided with a minimal statement disclosing the existence of any financial or non-financial interest, to prevent the disclosure of authors' identities. Reviewers will be provided the full competing interests declarations at the time of acceptance. Authors opting for double-blind peer review should provide their minimal statement (either "The authors declare the existence of a financial/non-financial competing interest" OR "The authors declare no competing interests") in the submission system and a complete statement of disclosure in their cover letter.

In addition to any declarations in submission systems or forms, all authors regardless of peer review model are required to include a statement at the end of their published article to declare whether or not they have any competing interests. The published article indicates the authors' response using one of the following standard sentences:

• The authors declare the following competing interests:
• The authors declare no competing interests.

We recognize that some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements. In such cases, in place of itemized disclosures, we require authors to state: "The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their competing interests in this work."

We do not require authors to state the monetary value of their financial interests.

Application to referees.

Our journals invite peer-reviewers to exclude themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. However, just as financial interests need not invalidate the conclusions of an article, nor do they automatically disqualify an individual from evaluating it. We ask peer-reviewers to inform the editors of any related interests, including financial interests as defined above, that might be perceived as relevant. Editors will consider these statements when weighing reviewers' recommendations.

Application to editors

Our journal editorial staff are required to declare to their employer any interests — financial or otherwise — that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial practices. Failure to do so is a disciplinary offence. The editorial staff are bond to the code of ethical conduct of UISI.

Application to external editors and editorial board members

Our journals sometimes make editorial decisions in collaboration with external editors and editorial board members from within the scientific community.

These editorial board members and external editors are required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

In addition, they should exclude themselves from handling manuscripts in cases where there is a competing interest. This may include – but is not limited to – having previously published with one or more of the authors and sharing the same institution as one or more of the authors.

Where an editorial board member or external editor is on the author list, they must declare this in the competing interests section on the submitted manuscript. If they are an author or have any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the editorial board will be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review. These submissions are subject to the exact same review process as any other manuscript.

Editorial board members and external editors are welcome to submit papers to the journal. These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts, and editorial board member or external editor status has no bearing on editorial consideration.

Application to publishing policy

Our journals thrive on their independence. Their strict policy is that editorial independence, decisions, and content should not be compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any specific arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors. Our policy is to disclose such arrangements where there is any risk of a perception of compromise.

Confidentiality

Editors, authors, and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Unless otherwise declared as a part of open peer review, the peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; identities of reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, referees' reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed, or otherwise publicised without prior written consent. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

We reserve the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals, and the authors’ institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.

Plagiarism and duplicate publication

Plagiarism and fabrication

Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text, or results. As defined by the ORI (Office of Research Integrity), plagiarism can include, "theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work". Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted without appropriate and unambiguous attribution. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in our journal. Aside from wholesale verbatim reuse of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarising the work of others. "Text recycling" or reuse of parts of text from an author's previous research publication is a form of self-plagiarism. Here too, due caution must be exercised. When reusing text, whether from the author's own publication or that of others, appropriate attribution and citation is necessary to avoid creating a misleading perception of unique contribution for the reader.

Duplicate (or redundant) publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from publishing an identical paper in multiple journals, to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published paper.

Our journal editors assess all such cases on their individual merits. When plagiarism becomes evident post-publication, we may correct, retract, or otherwise amend the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, context within the published article and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study. We use Similarity Check, a service that uses software tools to screen submitted manuscripts for text overlap. 

Due credit for others' work

Discussion of unpublished work

Manuscripts are sent out for review on the condition that any unpublished data cited within are properly credited and the appropriate permission has been attained. Where licenced data are cited, authors must include at submission a written assurance that they are complying with originators' data-licencing agreements.

Discussion of published work

When discussing the published work of others, authors must properly describe the contribution of the earlier work. Both intellectual contributions and technical developments must be acknowledged as such and appropriately cited.

Our journals' policy on duplicate publication

Material submitted to an our journal must be original and not published or concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere. 

Authors submitting a contribution to an our journal who have related material under consideration or in press elsewhere should upload a clearly marked copy at the time of submission, and draw the editors' attention to it in their cover letter. Authors must disclose any such information while their contributions are under consideration by an our journal - for example, if they submit a related manuscript elsewhere that was not written at the time of the original our journal submission.

If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to an our journal has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the covering letter accompanying the journal submission. Consideration by our journal is possible if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work, or if there are other factors, for example if the other work is published in a language other than English and Indonesian.

We will consider submissions containing material that has previously formed part of a PhD or other academic thesis which has been published according to the requirements of the institution awarding the qualification.

Our journals support prior publication on recognized community preprint servers for review by other scientists in the field before formal submission to a journal.

Our journals allow publication of meeting abstracts before the full contribution is submitted. Such abstracts should be included with the journal submission and referred to in the cover letter accompanying the manuscript.

In case of any doubt, authors should seek advice from the editor handling their contribution.

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. The journal editors consider all material in good faith that their journals have full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations.

Image integrity and standards

Digital images submitted with a manuscript for review should be minimally processed.  A certain degree of image processing is acceptable for publication (and for some experiments, fields and techniques is unavoidable), but the final image must correctly represent the original data and conform to community standards. Editors may use software to screen images for manipulation.

Editors may request the unprocessed data files to help in manuscript evaluation during the peer review process; if these data are unavailable upon request, we may need to halt the peer review process until the issues are satisfactorily resolved.  We may also request unprocessed data when responding to post-publication issues that may arise with published papers. Lack of availability of unprocessed data can make resolution of post-publication issues challenging.  We recommend retaining unprocessed data and metadata files after publication, ideally archiving data in perpetuity.  

All life science papers published in our journals require submission of unprocessed original images of gels and western blots to be submitted with the final accepted version. These unprocessed images are published in the Supplementary Information.

The guidelines below are intended to help in accurate presentation of image data.  Authors must also take care to avoid misrepresentation during data acquisition.  Please list all image acquisition tools and image processing software packages used and document key image-gathering settings and processing manipulations in the Methods.

• Images gathered at different times or from different locations should not be combined into a single image, unless it is stated that the resultant image is a product of time-averaged data or a time-lapse sequence. If juxtaposing images is essential, the borders should be clearly demarcated in the figure and described in the legend.
• The use of touch-up tools, such as cloning and healing tools in Photoshop, or any feature that deliberately obscures manipulations, is unacceptable.
• Processing (such as changing brightness and contrast) is appropriate only when it is applied equally across the entire image and is applied equally to controls. Contrast should not be adjusted so that data disappear. Excessive manipulations, such as processing to emphasize one region in the image at the expense of others (for example, through the use of a biased choice of threshold settings), is inappropriate, as is emphasizing experimental data relative to the control.

Electrophoretic gels and blots

• Quantitative comparisons between samples on different gels/blots are strongly discouraged; if this is unavoidable, the figure legend must state that the samples derive from the same experiment or parallel experiments and that gels/blots were processed in parallel. 
• Re-arranged lanes that are non-adjacent in the gel must be clearly indicated in a manner that delineates the boundary between the lanes. Re-arrangement of lanes should be stated as such in the figure legend. 
• Loading controls (e.g. GAPDH, actin) must be run on the same blot. When sample processing controls are run on different gels, they must be identified as such in the figure legend. Cropped gels in the paper must retain all important bands.
• High-contrast gels and blots are discouraged, as overexposure may mask additional bands.
• Authors should take care to check their manuscripts for the following (1) check figures for duplications (2) check blots and gels for splicing of lanes (3) indicate whether panels are sample processing or loading controls  (4) ensure that the unprocessed scans provided match the figures.

Microscopy

• 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. If "pseudo-colouring" and nonlinear adjustment (for example "gamma changes") are used, this must be disclosed. Adjustments of individual colour channels are sometimes necessary on "merged" images, but this should be noted in the figure legend.
• Cells from multiple fields should be grouped into a single field

We encourage inclusion of the following with the final revised version of the manuscript for publication: 

• In the Methods, specify the type of equipment (microscopes/objective lenses, cameras, detectors, filter model and batch number) and acquisition software used. Although we appreciate that there is some variation between instruments, equipment settings for critical measurements should also be listed.
• We encourage deposition of raw image files (including relevant metadata for example: acquisition information, including time and space resolution data (xyzt and pixel dimensions); image bit depth; experimental conditions such as temperature and imaging medium; and fluorochromes (excitation and emission wavelengths or ranges, filters, dichroic beamsplitters, if any). 
• The display lookup table (LUT) and the quantitative map between the LUT and the bitmap should be provided, especially when rainbow pseudocolor is used. If the LUT is linear and covers the full range of the data, that should be stated.
• Processing software should be named in the methods section and any manipulations indicated in the relevant figure legends (such as type of deconvolution, three-dimensional reconstructions, surface and volume rendering, "gamma changes," filtering, thresholding and projection).

Authors should state the measured resolution at which an image was acquired and any downstream processing or averaging that enhances the resolution of the image.