About Progress in Biomedical Engineering

Progress in Biomedical Engineering™ is an interdisciplinary journal publishing high impact, high quality reviews and opinion pieces which chart the progress of the field, highlight emerging trends, and identify key research directions. The journal provides a platform for knowledge sharing and offers researchers the opportunity to collaborate and shape the future direction of research in the field.

All areas within the interdisciplinary field of biomedical engineering are covered by the journal’s broad scope, and communities represented by a diverse range of published content facilitating timely and impactful discussions between scientists, engineers, and clinicians. Reviews and Perspectives by experts in the field are written with a view to informing both specialist and non-specialist readers by placing research developments within a wider context, making content accessible to a broad audience.

• Prestigious: content invited by a high calibre Editorial Board of international reputation and written by experts in the field.
• High standards: rigorous peer review from IOP Publishing’s global network of expert reviewers, handled by top-level Associate Editors and overseen by dedicated IOP Publishing in-house staff.
• Inclusive: broad and interdisciplinary scope covering all core areas within biomedical engineering, highlighting trends in key areas, bringing researchers together and linking communities.
• Society owned: any profits generated by IOP Publishing are used by the Institute of Physics to support science and scientists in both the developed and developing world.

Whilst most review and perspective articles are commissioned by the Editorial Board, unsolicited article proposals from the community are encouraged. Progress in Biomedical Engineering welcomes submissions of the following article types:

• Topical reviews: should present an overview of a topic by summarising the literature to report on the current state of the field. They can also provide insights into emerging fields and identify key research directions. Flexible in length depending on the topic focus and size or maturity of the field, typically no shorter than 6000 words, with broader topics deserving a more comprehensive or exhaustive review treatment.
• Perspectives: commentaries that provide an overview and exploration of an emerging or developing topic from a personal standpoint, providing an outlet for expressing the opinions and judgement of an expert in the field. They may identify critical questions in a line of research still in development but whose significance and goals have not yet been realized. Flexible in length but typically no shorter than 2000 words.

Proposing a review or perspective article

The majority of articles are commissioned by the Editorial Board, however proposals for reviews and perspectives from potential authors wishing to write for the journal are welcome. Before beginning to write a review or perspective, all authors are first required to submit an article outline regardless of whether their article has been commissioned or is unsolicited. An article outline allows the Board to judge the timeliness and suitability of the topic, whether the author’s proposal reflects what was intended in the invitation if originally commissioned, and to ensure similar articles are not already in preparation.

The outline should provide a brief summary detailing the intended approach to be used in the article and how it will add to the current literature landscape. For a review article proposal additional details are required in the outline; a list of contents and subheadings to ensure the article covers the subject comprehensively.

Outlines should be sent to our Publishing team at prgb@ioppublishing.org for assessment.

Writing a review article

A review should begin with a title and abstract that identifies the issue being addressed, and research area to be reviewed. A clear introduction giving an overview of the subject is important to convey why it is of relevance and interest to both specialist and general readerships of the biomedical engineering community. A good introductory section should lead the reader into the more detailed material and make the content accessible to a wide readership. The audience of a review may not be experts in the subject area, they may be engineers or clinicians working in other fields wishing to keep informed of developments outside their own specialisation or looking for an introduction to a new field.

The background section should present the rationale of why a review of this subject area is needed, along with a fair and balanced account of the current status of the subject, progress, and developments over the past 5–10 years. A clear distinction should be made between points of view which are well established, and those which are still speculative and under discussion. The article should be concluded with a section rounding off the review; highlighting the main advances or developments in the subject area. The author may choose to add concluding remarks on what new developments will emerge in the field and the future direction of research.

Careful attention should be given to sections of the review in which the current status of the subject is placed within the wider context and explained in non-specialist terms. Any technical terms should be fully described, and complex mathematical formalisms or numerical data which do not carry the discussion to a clear conclusion should be avoided.

Writing a perspective article

These articles aim to promote scientific discussion on the current progress of a topic of high interest within the biomedical engineering community and catalyse debate on the future trends and prospects of a particular field. Written from the viewpoint of a leading expert in the field, the author is provided with the opportunity to share their insights on the latest developments and progress of an exciting area of biomedical engineering, and shed light on potential future trends and directions with readers both within and outside their specialist discipline. They are more forward looking than topical review articles, often employing a narrower focus.

They should start with a short, thought-provoking title followed by an abstract of 200–500 words. The main body of text should be split into clearly defined paragraphs using short section headings where necessary. The first paragraph should introduce the issue under discussion to capture the readers’ interest and outline the current research landscape to a broad audience. The main body of text should discuss the limitations and implications for new developments in the field and focus on predictions for the future. The final paragraph should draw a conclusion without restating text, highlighting any unanswered questions on the future prospects and advancement of the field.

Opinion articles do not contain original research material or unpublished data, however evidence should be used to support the author’s personal observations, especially when advocating a controversial position.

We work with our authors to make their work as easy to discover as possible. Progress in Biomedical Engineering is currently included in the following abstracting and discovery services:

• Baidu Scholar
• CNKI
• Ei Compendex
• Embase
• Inspec
• J-Gate
• JST
• MyScienceWork
• NASA Astrophysics Data System
• Naver Academic
• R Discovery
• Scilit
• Scopus
• Semantic Scholar
• Wanfang Data
• Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)
• x-mol