New Results

These articles describe numerical models and experiments testing one or several precisely formulated hypotheses related to understanding or modulating aging. This should include elements of computational systems biology applied to relevant real datasets (in contrast to fully simulated ones). The computational research study should be complemented with one of the following:

• Wet-lab work empirically assessing the new findings
• An in silico assessment of the results, and ideas for precise experimental protocols to assess the new findings (which could give rise to a subsequent article in the Replication & Validation category).

We will publish positive or negative results alike, as long as the method is sound. If the computational method is also new, we will require a demonstration of its reliability on datasets where some elements of validation already exist and/or with appropriate simulations.

Replication & Validation

Replication articles reproduce the findings of one or several previously published articles, and conclude on their robustness and reproducibility. This should be done in the original setting, but can also include minor and clearly stated elements of novelty. We believe this kind of article has the potential to greatly strengthen our confidence in aging biology research and make it more efficient in the long run.

In this category, we also encourage the submission of validation articles describing the experimental validation (or refutation) of hypotheses, candidate genes or pathways previously put forward by in-silico studies, but where no wet-lab experiments (or incomplete ones) have been carried-out to assess and validate the results. If the original article(s) being replicated or validated are from Systems Aging as well, they will be visually and semantically linked together in the journal website.

Literature review

A structured overview of a topic linked to understanding the mechanisms of aging and longevity through the lens of systems biology. It should outline and critically discuss current knowledge and unknowns of this topic, while highlighting research directions worthy of future attention.

Opinion, News & Philosophy

These papers are a way for scientists to freely express their views on the field of systems biology and aging research. They can for example raise epistemological or moral problems in the field, propose new ways of thinking about a specific issue, or present new paradigms better suited to study the complexity of aging biology. Authors can also discuss societal and philosophical implications of aging research, or react to a particular event or news important for the science of aging.

Editors and editorial decisions

Each article is assigned an Editor. After a first assessment of the article, the Editor is in charge of finding peer-reviewers, and orchestrating the round(s) of scientific exchange between authors and reviewers. We encourage editors to take a stand in the discussion and also provide peer-review if they wish to. The name of the Editor will appear next to each published article.

An editorial decision can either be "Accept", "Reject", or "Revision".

Accept: the manuscript is accepted for publication, it will undergo the production phase. Shortly after APCs payment, the article is published online, free to read by anyone.

Reject: the manuscript is deemed unacceptable for publication in Systems Aging. Re-submissions are accepted, at the condition that the article was fundamentally revised to comply with the first editorial assessment.

Revision: The authors are asked to modify the current manuscript to comply with the editors and reviewers demands. The editor will detail the magnitude of the required revision, traditionally referred to as minor or major. The new manuscript is then re-uploaded for another round of editorial assessment and peer-review if necessary, until the Accept or Reject decision is reached.

Peer-review

Between 2 and 4 peer-reviewers are assigned to each article. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, track record of publication in the field, and lack of known conflicts of interests with authors. They are asked to evaluate the methodology and conclusions of articles. Their opinion and recommendations help the editor make a decision. Authors will be asked to recommend a list of reviewers they deem appropriate, and a list of reviewers they wish to exclude, and why. We implement double-blind peer-review, where the identity of authors and reviewers is hidden until a final editorial decision is reached.

After publication, unless a reviewer asked to remain anonymous, the peer-review becomes open, i.e. the names of peer-reviewers and their comments are disclosed to both authors and readers. We think this model has the potential to greatly improve the peer-reviewing experience for authors, reviewers and readers alike. In particular, this model directly and fairly gives credit to reviewers for their time and effort spent assessing the work of others. It also incentivizes reviewers to speak their minds in a constructive and courteous manner, even in the face of disagreements, which benefits the authors. More broadly, we would like to foster dialogues where no one is afraid of the repercussions of sharing honest scientific thoughts. We also believe the content of the peer-review exchange is of great scientific value, which is why it will appear next to published articles on the website.

Errors and scientific misconduct

At any moment of the peer-review process, the Editor can reject a paper if he or she has spotted any form of data fabrication, data falsification, or plagiarism. If any scientific misconduct is brought to the journal's attention after publication, the Editorial Board will decide between asking the authors to provide a correction or retracting the article. If the authors, in good faith, have become aware of an error in their published article, they are invited to contact the editorial office. The correction of the online article will be organized, and an Erratum statement will be added alongside the article.

Systems Aging is not accepting submissions yet as we are still developing the articles submission and production workflow.

If the authors wish to, pre-submission enquiries can be addressed to systemsaging@ephyrapublishing.com: an editor will inform you of the adequacy of your article with the journal scope.

LLMs policy

We believe that whether scientific writing originates from humans or LLMs essentially amounts to the same work for editors: we will still uncompromisingly control the quality and the validity of truth claims made by the authors, and hold them accountable for it. Therefore, we will not specifically forbid nor check the use of LLMs in submitted articles - which will become an increasingly difficult task anyway.

Still, we hereafter express our belief that researchers should not use LLMs to write scientific papers, nor to peer-review papers.

First, the ability to clearly and creatively articulate one's thoughts on a complicated issue is highly valuable, and, we argue, well worth perfecting while writing scientific papers. This will not only help writers for future articles, but also for communicating more efficiently with colleagues, mentors and students.

Second, we consider dangerous the fact of delegating our thinking to models that have been shown to provide objectively wrong answers. An acceptable use would be to carefully check all LLM assertions, which will probably amount to no productivity gain if done meticulously.

Finally, if authors feel a pressure to write more than they can write themselves and need to rely on automated writing to accomplish career goals, then it is time to open a discussion within institutions about the ethics and fundamental mission of researchers.

All articles of Systems Aging are published according to the gold Open Access model: articles are available under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY 4.0) and fulfil the DOAJ definition of Open Access. The CC BY lincense allows anyone to read, share, and build upon published content freely as long as credit is attributed, while authors retain copywright on their article. Authors are permitted to self-archive articles, i.e. deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.

To support the Open Access model, accepted articles will be published upon payment of Article Processing Charges (APCs).

• New Results and Replication & Validation articles: 2000$,
• Literature Review articles: 1500$,
• Opinion, News & Philosophy articles: 1000$.

Discretionary waivers can be granted on a case-by-case basis. During the inaugural period of the journal, APCs may also be reduced.

If you have any question, please reach out at systemsaging@ephyrapublishing.com.