Evidence-Based Toxicology - Calls for Papers
At EBTC we support research on key contemporary topics via our journal, Evidence Based Toxicology.
We are calling for papers on (1) microplastics, (2) responsible use of AI, and (3) reproducible study methods. Scroll down for more details.
All manuscripts should be submitted through the EBT submission portal in accordance with our standard journal processes. Manuscripts submitted in response to Calls for Papers will be reviewed in the same way as any regular submission.
Call 1: Evidence-based microplastic and nanoplastic toxicology
Micro- and nanoplastics (MNP) research is a fascinating new area for developing evidence-based responses to a wide range of challenges in conducting useful, reliable toxicological research and responding to evidence with effective policy interventions.
In observational research, measuring levels of MNPs in various matrices presents many interesting detection challenges. In experimental contexts, controlled exposure to MNP reflects, and in some cases accentuates, the difficulties with studying particulates - particularly when MNPs can be acting as a vehicle for other exposures, adding a new dimension to mixture toxicity.
MNP research also presents an interesting case study for the incentive structures around funding, doing, and publishing toxicological research. There are arguably more review papers than should be sustained by the primary literature, and the novelty of findings on an important issue potentially outweighs the need to ensure rigour of methods for producing data.
Issues of incentive structures in research may even be spilling over into research fraud, with worrying anecdotal evidence of image manipulation and other issues potentially being prevalent in MNP toxicology studies, that the toxicology community should perhaps look at in more detail.
Finally, MNPs may also shine a light on how policy-makers can and ought to respond to uncertain evidence of harm. Calls to “follow the science” when the science may be unclear are not necessarily helpful, but withholding action when protective health policy may ultimately prove to be needed may not be a viable option either. Helping policy-makers navigate this space with credible, protective policy responses is important.
Overall, MNPs present a fascinating space in which to publish about a range of issues.
Goal of the call for papers
We are therefore inviting submissions on “evidence-based” approaches for researching and responding to the health risks posed by MNPs. This includes:
- Studies that use or develop evidence-based methods for conducting and reporting primary and secondary research into MNPs
- How incentive structures can distort the research ecosystem
- The interface between evidence and decisions
- Research integrity issues being surfaced by MNP publications
Research and expert comment articles that contribute to advancing our understanding of any of the above, or other interesting issues relating to MNP toxicology, are welcome.
How to express interest in this Call
We are currently requesting expressions of interest in this Call for Papers.
If you have any questions, ideas for submissions, or would like more information about submission windows and other events relating to the Collection, please email EBT’s Editor-in-Chief Paul Whaley PhD, at p.whaley@lancaster.ac.uk
Call 2: Responsible use of AI in toxicology
There is an increasing need for high-quality, authoritative guidance on the responsible use of AI in research. A recent response to this need is the RAISE recommendations for responsible use of AI in evidence synthesis (Thomas et al. 2026).
RAISE is developing into an important series of guidance documents for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in systematic review and evidence mapping projects.
However, we note that many of the RAISE recommendations apply equally well to primary research as they do evidence synthesis, apply not only to AI but any computational approach to analysing and using toxicology data, and RAISE needs adapting for the unique context of toxicology research.
To encourage engagement with RAISE specifically, and the issues of responsible use of AI and computational methods in toxicology more generally, we are inviting submissions on the implications of RAISE for toxicology.
Two members of the Evidence-Based Toxicology Editorial Board are co-authors of RAISE and we welcome discussion of submission ideas with prospective authors.
Suggested themes for submitted articles
We are inviting research articles (primary studies, evidence syntheses) and reflective pieces (comment articles) of any length (full manuscripts or research letters) about the responsible use of AI and computational methods in toxicology research.
Topics for submissions could include the following:
- Building on the research ecosystem “roles” that structure RAISE, where, how, and for whom should the RAISE recommendations be adapted for the unique scientific and cultural contexts of toxicology research?
- How should toxicologists analyse and report the performance of AI and computational tools in toxicology? This could also potentially focus on the unique needs and contributions that each research ecosystem role could have or make.
- How should toxicologists identify, select, apply, and report the use of AI and computational tools in toxicology? There is a growing plethora of tools, so identfying appropriate tools, evaluating them efficiently, and reporting their use in a way that is transparent and supportive of the development of such tools by other researchers is of particular interest.
The above are suggestions. Any interesting paper that develops or applies any theme within RAISE, either in primary or secondary research that is in or is applicable to toxicology or environmental health, is eligible for this Call for Papers.
How to express interest in this Call
We are currently requesting expressions of interest in this Call for Papers.
If you have any questions, ideas for submissions, or would like more information about submission windows and other events relating to the Collection, please email EBT’s Editor-in-Chief Paul Whaley PhD, at p.whaley@lancaster.ac.uk
Call 3: Reproducible methods in toxicology
A major challenge to the reproducibility of findings in toxicological research is the brevity and lack of sufficient detail in the methods sections of published manuscripts.
Whatever the reason for methods sections being brief (word count limits, readability, linking out to previously published materials), unfortunately, methods descriptions that are incomplete impair the reproducibility of study methods.
Often, it is fine for methods sections to be brief, but when reproducibility does matter, we need all the methods in one place, including the detailed “secret sauce” that actually makes it work in a laboratory or desktop situation.
Since methods with this much detail cannot realistically be published in conventional study manuscripts, other publishing formats better-suited to supporting reproducibility need to be explored.
To support this exploration, we are inviting submissions of research protocols, i.e. methods-only papers that describe in detail the operational procedures for a reproducible study method.
What we are looking for in a reproducible methods submission
A reproducible method should consist of a step-by-step operational procedure that another researcher ought to be able to follow with a reasonable expectation of coming to the same results.
Note, this is not necessarily about direct replication (although replication can be a target). Nor does it need to be a complete protocol for an entire study - it can address only a specific part of a research process, especially if that part is technically challenging and recognised as being difficult to reliably repeat in different places (consistent nanomaterial exposure in vitro being just one example).
The point is that if a method is a good way of finding something out, or is a good way of ensuring the quality of some experimental procedure, such that if were shared it would help the toxicology community better implement sometimes complex and challenging methodological processes, then such operational procedures should be published.
Operational methods can be expected to evolve and improve over time, so the method should ideally be versioned and published on a methods platform such as protocols.io to support discovery and adaptation.
The method should be accompanied by a brief description of how it was developed, its scope and applicability, limitations and need for further work, evidence of its utility to the toxicology community, and evidence of its repeatability (even if this is only to show the promise of the method, rather than demonstrate its general reproducibility).
How to express interest in this Call
We are currently requesting expressions of interest in this Call for Papers.
We emphasise that this Call for Papers is an experiment in using journals to support the enhanced reporting of study methods, so we want to hear your ideas about how methods sharing should work.
Comment pieces about the minimum requirements for reporting a study method and other issues around sharing study methods, including challenges (such as incentives and obstacles for sharing methods) and how to overcome them are also welcome.
If you have any questions, ideas for submissions, or would like more information about submission windows and other events relating to the Collection, please email EBT’s Editor-in-Chief Paul Whaley PhD, at p.whaley@lancaster.ac.uk