Pharmaceutical Biology Manuscript Standards

In an effort to establish uniform guidelines for the acceptance of manuscripts and to clarify for authors the
requirements for consideration of a paper, in addition to the published instructions to authors, please
review the following guidelines. Remember that these guidelines are designed to help establish
uniformity. However, final decisions are always made at the discretion of the editors.

1. Scope – Pharmaceutical Biology publishes manuscripts describing the discovery, methods for
discovery, description, analysis characterization, and production/isolation (including sources and
surveys) of biologically-active chemicals or other substances, drugs, pharmaceutical products, or
preparations utilized in systems of traditional medicine. Topics encompass any facet of natural
product research related to pharmaceutical biology. Papers dealing with agents or topics related to
natural product drugs are also appropriate (e.g., semi-synthetic derivatives). Manuscripts will be
published as reviews, regular research articles, and short communications. The primary criteria
for acceptance and publication are scientific rigor and potential to advance scientific knowledge.
a. Biological activity studies based on the traditional uses of a natural product should be
considered.
b. The isolation and identification of chemical constituents, either for the first time, or for
the first time in a particular genus, are acceptable if the authors have included all
appropriate data.
Reasons for rejection:
a. Studies on commercial products not directly related to a natural product and its traditional
use.
b. Focus of the manuscript is not within the scope of the journal as stated above.

2. Data required in manuscripts – Manuscripts should be based on a thorough and extensive

study, containing proper controls and should be written in a clear and precise manner.
References/citations in text should be comprehensive and based on current publications.
Reasons for rejection:
a. Manuscripts that fail to follow the format/style used by Pharmaceutical Biology, as
explained in the instructions to authors, including the Declaration of Interest.
b. Poorly written manuscripts that required extensive editing, beyond the function of a
reviewer or editor, to make the paper acceptable, may be rejected for that reason alone.
c. Natural products not identified by Latin binomial, binomial authority, and family. Lack
of required voucher specimen information.
d. Animal studies that do not include approval of an ethics committee.
e. Human studies that do not include evidence of informed consent.

3. Biological Activity - Where biological testing is reported, the results should include IC 50 ED50,
LD50, MIC, etc. as appropriate.
Antimicrobial Studies - MIC data is required for each paper and we will no longer accept
manuscripts without MICs or those where the MIC is above > 250 micrograms per ml.
Dose Dependent Studies – in vivo dose dependency experiments with only three doses may
be accepted if the results are clearly and unquestionably different.  If the results at adjacent
doses are close to, or within the 95% confidence limits, we cannot accept them as indicating
dose-dependency. 
For in vitro studies there is no justification in running only three doses, a minimum of 5 does
is required.
Reasons for rejection:
a. Lack of MIC data obtained by microdilution method. (For reference consult NCCLS
(2008): Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Ninth
 Informational Supplement. NCCLS document M100-S9. National Committee for Clinical
Laboratory Standards, Wayne, PA)
b. Antimicrobial papers with MIC activity not given in μg/ml or above 250 μg/ml in the
extract/fraction/compound tested.
c. Authors who submit only zones of inhibition should be reminded that the comparison of
the size of inhibition halos of different extracts cannot be used for the determination of
the relative antimicrobial potency since a more diffusible but less active extract could
give a bigger diameter than a non-diffusible but more active extract. Such papers may be
rejected for this reason alone.
d. Antioxidant activity that contains only chemical in vitro assays with no direct
connection to traditional uses, lack of positive controls, or relevant in vivo doses. (Note:
Because all plants have antioxidant activity, isolation of common antioxidant compounds,
such as flavonoids, should not be considered for publication.)
e. Papers about anti-diabetic activities of plant extracts should identify the putative active
natural compounds.

4. Ethnobotany surveys – To preserve the rich treasure of traditional knowledge and to give
scientists a basis for further pharmaceutical studies, such reports are important.
Reasons for rejection:
a. Lack of information regarding the basis for disease diagnosis and methods of treatment
and how these were observed and verified.
b. Ethnomedical reports on traditional uses of natural products that contain only local data
with no effort to incorporate this information on a broader scale (for example, a simple
listing of local plants and how they are used).
c. Lack of information regarding criteria for the selection of informants or cross checks of
information.
d. No information regarding the protection of biodiversity rights of indigenous people or
local government.
e. Listing of plants in a specific area that simply confirms already known regional practices.

5. Originality – Presenting new information regarding biological activity or chemical constituents

of natural products is a major aim of Pharmaceutical Biology.
Reasons for rejection:
a. Repeating previously published results, but with different extracts of the same plant, or,
in the case of antimicrobial activity, some other microorganisms.
b. Repetition of well known data or identification of only well known ubiquitous
compounds.
c. Pharmacological assays which are non-specific or not internationally recognized as valid
and relevant.
d. Phytochemical screening methods which are non-specific.

March 18, 2009 Rev.

.