Biological reviews and biological proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews publishes synthetic reviews, based on the literature, covering important biological questions that are interesting to a broad readership and are timely (e.g. from a fast-moving field, or due to new discoveries or conceptual advances). A 'synthetic review' goes beyond compiling information, rather it should analyse the information and build a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can substantially reshape the area. Definition of review Our concept of a review is one that comprehensively surveys the literature in order to answer a key biological question, or to identify new biological questions that need to be addressed to advance the field. This includes using data from the literature (for example, in meta-analyses). A review contrasts with primary research, which is the generation of new data. Thus, taxonomic or phylogenetic reviews, which draw conclusions from new data (even if made from “published” specimens or archived sequence data) typically fall out of scope as being primary research. Also out of scope are “opinion pieces” where they are based on an incomplete survey of the literature, where studies are only included that fit a specified hypothesis. Reviews suitable for Biological Reviews synthesise the literature and from this draw novel insights which contribute to the reshaping of an area. To help authors with some concrete guidance, a reviewer described what we are looking for in the following ways: “Excellent reviews provide new conceptual insight not present in the primary literature. For example, they may bring together literature items (e.g. empirical or theoretical) that were previously disconnected to show where they do in fact overlap; or the review may generate significant new ideas and hypotheses. Such reviews are rare but, if they are readable and clear, they can form the basis for a new research direction. Good reviews explain difficult topics and make use of examples to illustrate how phenomena or theories are connected, or provide synthetic overviews of a large body of literature (empirical or theoretical). They can be the first entry into a new literature and may often allow readers to extract information or insights (e.g., about key experiments to be done) that are difficult to see from reading the primary literature or existing summaries. There are also not-so-useful reviews. These are more like summaries. They summarize recent opinions or results of one or several fields, restate conclusions that are eas

摘自期刊官网 Aims & Scope

主编 John Welch出版商官网

编委会国家分布：未见中国大陆编委；主要国家 英国 10、美国 2、加拿大 1、澳大利亚 1、新西兰 1（共 15 位编委标注了国家） 编委会 ↗出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

中科院期刊分区表

数据库收录

收录数据库：暂无记录。

国际期刊预警名单：各版本均未列入LetPub

期刊官网自述收录

SCIEScopusMEDLINEPubMedCASCAB AbstractsGeoRefCurrent Contents出版商官网

其他：EBSCO、ProQuest、AGRICOLA

期刊官网列出的收录清单，未与各数据库逐一核对；Web of Science 各子库以上方记录为准。

不同版本、大类与小类分别展示，不将不同评价口径合并为一个分区值；投稿与考核前请确认所在机构采用的版本。

影响力指标

影响因子（出版商公布）

10.9出版商官网 · 2026-09-25

影响因子（出版商公布） 2025

10.9出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

CiteScore（出版商公布）

24.5出版商官网 · 2026-09-25

CiteScore（出版商公布） 2025

24.5出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

h-index

0OpenAlex · 2026-10-01

i10-index

0OpenAlex · 2026-10-01

两年平均被引

0OpenAlex · 2026-10-01

Gold OA 文章占比

0%LetPub · 2026-09-13

发文规模

年发文量（出版商公布） 2025

129出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

年下载量（出版商公布） 2025

1,552,045出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

不同来源的统计口径与观测时间不同，页面保留各来源原值；“出版商公布”为期刊官网自述数据。

各来源数据

平均录用比例（社区反馈）

容易LetPub · 2026-09-13

录用率（出版商公布）

22%出版商官网 · 2026-09-25

录用率（出版商公布） 2025

22%出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

投稿到首次决定

12 天出版商官网 · 2026-09-25

投稿到首次决定 2025

12 天出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

投稿到接收 2025

303 天出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

接收到发表 2025

14 天出版商官网 · 2026-09-30

社区反馈来自投稿者样本，置信度 0.5，不代表期刊承诺；“出版商公布”的时间节点定义以官网为准。

尚未从任何来源获得费用信息，请以期刊官网为准。

费用以期刊官网为准；不同来源的观测时间可能不同，页面保留各来源原值，不做平均。

摘录来自期刊官网页面，仅保留原文片段；“模型摘要”由 Workers AI 生成并经原文校验，以官网为准。

出版周期

Quarterly

ISSN

0301-7699

学会 / 主办单位

Cambridge Philosophical Society

官网最新一期

Volume 101, Issue 5（2026 年 10 月）

官方链接

• 期刊主页 ↗LetPub
• 投稿系统 ↗LetPub
• 专刊 / 特刊征稿 ↗出版商官网