Article Sizing Tool Pnas

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 5; 113(14): 3702–3703.

PNAS is the world's most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serial. It publishes high-impact research reports, commentaries, perspectives, reviews, colloquium papers, and actions of the Academy. It publishes high-impact research reports, commentaries, perspectives, reviews, colloquium papers, and actions of the Academy.

Published online 2016 Mar 1. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1602165113

Sizing tips: It may be necessary to reduce the size of your figures to meet the PNAS page length restriction. To ensure that text within your figures remains legible if you do need to reduce the size of your figures, please follow these steps: 1. Prepare your figures at the size you would like them to appear in the final publication. PNAS Author Center. Initial Submission. All authors must submit their articles at the PNAS submission site. Only a single PDF file containing all text, figures, tables, and supporting information (SI) is required for initial submissions; high-resolution files are not required. The second paper I've published with PNAS and so far they have both been nice experiences. I would definitely submit another article to them again in the future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: 3.9 weeks: 6.3 weeks: n/a. Viruses harbored by bats and rodents, considered high-risk reservoirs, are no more likely to infect humans than viruses carried by other hosts, a study suggests.

PMID: 26933217

The first monthly issue of PNAS was published on January 15, 1915, with 17 articles, including a report from the home secretary summarizing the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) 1914 Autumn Meeting. Papers were between one and four pages in length, for a grand total of 58 pages. In contrast, PNAS is now published daily online and in weekly issues. Our December 29, 2015 issue contains 60 articles, 293 print pages, and 136 online-only pages, with an average article length of 6.8 pages, not to mention all of the supplemental data. In the last 100 years, PNAS has published well over 150,000 articles and nearly 650,000 printed pages, covering research in a wide swath of physical, biological, and social sciences. The PNAS Office receives around 50 Direct Submission papers a day for consideration and, after initial review by the Editorial Board, about half of them—close to 7,000 papers a year—are sent for review. In the last few years, about 3,000 Direct Submission research articles have been published annually, which constitutes an acceptance rate of 16–19%. More than 75% of published papers are Direct Submissions (i.e., not contributed by NAS members). A 120-word statement about the significance of the paper is prominently displayed on the first page of each research article to allow a casual reader to understand its importance. Moving into the next century, our primary focus will remain on publishing the highest quality scientific papers.

PNAS is one of the most widely read interdisciplinary journals in the world, and the online edition receives well over 25 million hits per month. PNAS continues to be a leading player in the dissemination of the best scientific research. In January 2013, we expanded the front section of the journal with five new article types—Core Concepts, Opinions, News Features, Science and Culture, and Inner Workings—with the goal of better explaining and more actively discussing the core research we publish. A senior editor oversees and recruits content for these sections, as well as the Journal Club blog (blog.pnas.org). The front section continues to be mentioned as an attractive feature of PNAS by readers in annual surveys. Other nonresearch pieces in this section can also highlight important scientific and funding issues, such as the Perspective on the state of biomedical research in the United States by Alberts, Kirschner, Tilghman, and Varmus ().

To celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the journal and a century of groundbreaking research, we published Anniversary Commentaries and Perspectives on notable papers from our archives. In all, we commissioned 3 Special Features, 7 Commentaries, 8 Perspectives, and 12 front matter articles, all discussing landmark papers published in PNAS: for example, Nash’s paper on game theory (), Nirenberg and Matthaei’s paper on in vitro translation (), Pauling and Coryell’s paper on the magnetic properties of hemoglobin (), and Hunter and Sefton’s paper on tyrosine kinase (). Our Anniversary portal (pnas100th.org) collects all of this content, as well as three eye-catching videos, each featuring a significant publication from the PNAS archives, and an interactive timeline.

The member Contributed submission track is a unique feature of PNAS, whereby NAS members can select their own reviewers, although the final version of the paper requires approval by a member of the PNAS Editorial Board. This track remains a privilege of NAS membership and is a source of debate with NAS members and nonmembers alike. To make the process more transparent and stringent, we have mandated since October 2015 that the names and affiliations of the reviewers be listed alongside the name of the contributing member. We have also asked that members submit their contributions directly to the PNAS Office with the names of the reviewers so that the PNAS Office can handle all correspondence during the review process. The member receives the reviews and makes the decision to respond and to submit a revised manuscript. As before, the final say regarding the suitability of the work for PNAS rests with a member of the Editorial Board. To level the playing field, members are no longer permitted to submit a paper for a nonmember or to serve as a “prearranged” editor for a nonmember’s paper.

For many years, PNAS has published a disproportionately high number of manuscripts in the biological sciences, even though nearly half the NAS membership is in the physical sciences and mathematics. To encourage more participation from the nonbiological sciences, we have hired a recruiting editor dedicated to spearheading solicitation of papers from the physical sciences and mathematics. We have also added two new associate editors and expanded the Editorial Board with additional expertise in social science, economics, engineering, and sustainability.

For nearly five decades, I have witnessed PNAS displayed prominently on library shelves, but as of 2015 the journal stopped advertising a print option to subscribers. I am saddened by this loss, but the reality is that online journals are the future and PNAS Online contains more information than the print edition, such as supporting information, PNAS Plus research papers, and Letters to the Editor. We are re-evaluating our page limits for both articles and supporting information, and are mindful of the fact that long manuscripts demand more time of the reviewers and cost more to produce, even when published online only.

Nearly 1,200 Academy members participated in the review process in 2015 by serving as an assigned editor, and we enlisted help from almost 1,000 guest editors when there were no Academy members available to handle the paper or who were expert in the topic of the work. However, all papers published in PNAS, whether Direct Submissions edited by an NAS member or guest editor, or Contributed by an Academy member, are approved by a member of the PNAS Editorial Board. We want to encourage more Academy members and members of the broad scientific community to become active in editing and reviewing for PNAS.

On occasion, when editorial disagreements arise or when questions are raised about conflicts of interest, scientific misconduct, retractions, reviewers, data availability, and other concerns, we consult with experts to establish guidelines. For example, we have

Article Sizing Tool Pnas 2017

We want to encourage more Academy members and members of the broad scientific community to become active in editing and reviewing for PNAS.

Article Sizing Tool Pnas Template

refined our policies on conflicts of interest, how to manage complex data availability concerns regarding sources like Facebook and Twitter, and how to handle studies involving human participants without compromising patient identity. In addition, we are looking at issues hindering the replication of published results caused by a lack of sufficient methodological information.

Because of the genomic era and increased emphasis on translational research and clinical trials, we are witnessing an increase of publications in these areas. Similarly, the boundaries between biological and physical sciences are fading rapidly. As PNAS moves into its next century, I would like to explore how we can increase our engagement in such areas, and I invite your comments and suggestions on our current and future plans.

References

1. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(16):5773–5777.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Nash JF., Jr Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1950;36(1):48–49.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Article Sizing Tool Pnas Examples

3. Nirenberg MW, Matthaei JH. The dependence of cell-free protein synthesis in E. coli upon naturally occurring or synthetic polyribonucleotides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1961;47(10):1588–1602.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Pauling L, Coryell CD. The magnetic properties and structure of hemoglobin, oxyhemoglobin and carbonmonoxyhemoglobin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1936;22(4):210–216.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Hunter T, Sefton BM. Transforming gene product of Rous sarcoma virus phosphorylates tyrosine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1980;77(3):1311–1315.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Article Sizing Tool Pnas 2016

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences