Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism

About Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism

Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism — A Complete Profile

Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism is a review journal in clinical endocrinology published by Taylor & Francis, issued six times a year. It belongs to the publisher’s Expert Review family of medical journals, whose defining idea is that busy specialists need more than raw research reports: they need authoritative reviews that survey the current state of a field, add an expert’s judgement about what actually works, and look ahead to what the next five years are likely to bring. The journal’s own mission description, carried on its journal pages, promises extensive coverage of state-of-the-art research and clinical advances in endocrine control and metabolism, centred on screening, prevention, diagnostics and existing and novel therapeutics, together with the molecular genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology that underpin them. Launched in 2006, it has covered the modern era of endocrinology — the incretin revolution in diabetes, the transformation of osteoporosis treatment, new understanding of pituitary and adrenal disease — from a clinician’s point of view. Its standard abbreviation is Expert Rev. Endocrinol. Metab.

At a Glance

The Expert Review Idea

Understanding this journal means understanding the format it is named after. A conventional research journal asks, “What is new?” A review journal of the Expert Review type asks three further questions: “What does the new evidence mean?”, “What should a specialist do differently on Monday morning?”, and “Where is this heading?” The journal’s format description makes the structure explicit. Each review gives a complete overview of current thinking in a key area, and then adds three signature elements. An Expert commentary section carries the author’s personal view of the most effective or promising strategies. A Five-year view section sets out future prospects within a realistic timescale — long enough for pipelines and trials to mature, short enough to stay honest. And a Key issues box distils the article into an executive summary of the author’s most critical points, so a reader with five minutes still leaves with the essentials.

This format shapes everything else about the journal. Articles are written by recognised specialists, many of them commissioned by the editors to cover a topic at the moment it becomes clinically important. Unsolicited review proposals are welcomed, but the gateway is a proposal and outline discussed with the commissioning editor, not a cold full-manuscript submission of the kind a primary-research journal expects. Authors are asked to disclose professional or financial interests that could be perceived as conflicts, a requirement that matters in a field where industry-funded trials of diabetes and obesity medicines are a large share of the evidence base. The result is a journal that sits between the primary literature and the clinic: more opinionated than a systematic review, more disciplined than a lecture, and designed for decision-making, as its own scope text puts it, by all professionals within the specialty.

Scope in Depth

The journal covers endocrine control and metabolism across the full breadth of the specialty. Its stated clinical territory includes diabetes, obesity and osteoporosis, thyroid disease, adrenal insufficiency and pituitary tumours, together with disorders of growth, reproduction and weight management, and hormone-regulated gene expression. The record on this site adds the working topics that fill its issues: diabetes treatment and management, cardiovascular risk and lipoproteins, pituitary gland disorders, thyroid disorders and thyroid cancer, neuroendocrine tumour research, and thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Each deserves a closer look.

Diabetes and metabolic medicine

Diabetes is the journal’s largest single territory, spanning type 1 and type 2 disease, screening and prevention, glycaemic monitoring technology, insulin therapy, and the succession of drug classes that have reshaped treatment since the journal’s launch — incretin-based therapies, SGLT2 inhibitors and dual agonists among them — together with their cardiovascular and renal outcome evidence. Because diabetes care is where endocrinology meets cardiology and nephrology, reviews regularly address cardiovascular risk, lipoproteins and weight as part of diabetes management rather than as separate silos.

Thyroid, parathyroid and calcium

A second territory covers the thyroid in health and disease: hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, thyroid nodules and thyroid cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the surgical dimension — thyroid and parathyroid surgery — that this journal, unusually for a medical review title, explicitly includes in its working scope. Calcium and bone health connect this territory to osteoporosis, where reviews address bone-density assessment, fracture risk and the antiresorptive and anabolic drug classes, as well as rarer metabolic bone disease.

Pituitary, adrenal and neuroendocrine topics

The third territory is the classic glandular endocrinology of the pituitary and adrenals: pituitary tumours including prolactinoma — a topic on which the journal continues to publish evidence syntheses addressing optimal hormone levels, predictors of remission and recurrence after treatment withdrawal — acromegaly and Cushing’s syndrome, adrenal insufficiency and its management, and neuroendocrine tumours, where endocrinology overlaps with oncology. Growth disorders, reproductive endocrinology and the endocrinology of ageing and weight regulation round out the coverage, supported by reviews of the molecular genetics and pathophysiology that explain why hormone systems fail.

History and Development

The journal began publication in 2006, with coverage recorded from that year in Scopus-derived listings, and it has published continuously since, reaching its twentieth volume era in the mid-2020s. Its launch timing was apt. The mid-2000s were the moment when endocrinology’s evidence base began expanding faster than any individual clinician could follow unaided: large cardiovascular outcome trials in diabetes, new biologic and small-molecule therapies, and rapidly shifting guidelines created exactly the synthesis problem the Expert Review format was built to solve. The journal was originally associated with the Expert Reviews publishing programme that became part of Taylor & Francis; today it is published by Taylor & Francis Ltd. in the United Kingdom and distributed through the Taylor & Francis Online platform, where its journal code, visible in its table-of-contents address (iere), is the stable handle for its archive. Six issues a year has been its characteristic rhythm, giving it the frequency to respond to guideline changes and major trial readouts while keeping each issue review-length rather than research-thin.

Peer Review and Editorial Standards

The journal’s format description states that articles are subject to peer review by three independent referees on a double-blind basis — a heavier refereeing load than many review journals apply, reflecting the clinical weight its recommendations can carry — and its scope materials summarise the position as rigorous peer review for all articles. Three features of its editorial practice follow from the format. First, commissioning is an editorial act: editors identify topics whose evidence base has moved and recruit authors able to judge it, while unsolicited proposals are screened for the same quality. Second, structure is enforced: the commentary, five-year view and key-issues elements are not optional garnish but the mechanism by which opinion is labelled as opinion and separated from the evidence survey. Third, disclosure is required: authors must declare professional or financial interests that might be perceived as conflicts, and readers should treat those declarations as part of the article. Named editorial-board membership changes over time and is listed on the journal’s Taylor & Francis pages, which are the authoritative source for the current editors; this profile deliberately describes the editorial system rather than freezing a roster that will date.

Indexing, Metrics and Standing

The journal is indexed in the major biomedical discovery systems appropriate to its field, including Scopus and PubMed/MEDLINE-type coverage for its clinical content, and it is tracked by SCImago using Scopus data, where its subject category is Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism and its best quartile in recent years has been Q2. Listing-derived metrics vary by provider and year — one recent metrics compilation reported a journal impact factor around 2.7 with a five-year figure around 3.5 and an SJR around 0.90 — and such numbers should always be quoted with their year and source, as they move annually. The OpenAlex snapshot on this record reports an h-index of 48 and about 13,739 citations, consistent with a mid-sized specialist review journal whose articles accumulate citations steadily as background reading for research and guidelines. For an author or reader, the practical reading of these figures is that the journal is an established, mid-tier specialist title: not a general-medical flagship, but a recognised venue whose reviews are found, read and cited by the endocrine community it serves.

Who Should Read It, and Who Should Write for It

The readership the journal itself names is all professionals within the specialty: consultant endocrinologists, diabetologists, specialist nurses and pharmacists working in endocrine services, and trainees who need structured entry points into fast-moving topics. A researcher entering a new endocrine subfield will also find its reviews efficient first reading, because the five-year-view sections identify which questions the field itself considers open. For prospective authors, the fit is specific. The journal wants authoritative reviewers of evidence — typically established specialists or teams — writing structured reviews, drug profiles, editorials, commentaries and meeting highlights. It is not a home for primary clinical trial reports or laboratory studies. The route in is a proposal: the journal’s guidance invites authors to contact the commissioning editor with a brief proposal and article outline, and to follow the publisher’s author guidelines for format, references and declarations once a proposal is accepted. Before proposing, check the recent tables of contents on Taylor & Francis Online: the journal rarely commissions the same topic twice in quick succession, and a proposal that updates an older review with genuinely new evidence is stronger than one that duplicates a recent article.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the journal’s ISSNs?
Print ISSN 1744-6651 and online ISSN 1744-8417, as stored on this record and used by the publisher and indexing services.

Who publishes it?
Taylor & Francis, in the United Kingdom. It is one of the publisher’s Expert Review series of medical review journals.

Is it a research journal or a review journal?
Primarily a review journal. Its articles survey and judge the existing evidence, in the signature format of a full overview plus expert commentary, a five-year view and a key-issues summary; it does not exist to publish new trial or laboratory data.

How is it peer-reviewed?
Its format description specifies review by three independent referees on a double-blind basis, and all articles are described as undergoing rigorous peer review. Authors must disclose potential conflicts of interest.

How often does it appear, and since when?
Six issues per year, published since 2006.

Is it open access?
It is a subscription journal; it is not a fully open-access title. Individual articles may be made open through the publisher’s open-access options, so check the article page for its licence before reusing it.

How do I propose an article?
Prepare a brief proposal and outline and approach the journal’s commissioning editor through the Taylor & Francis journal pages, following the publisher’s current author guidelines. Do not send a completed unsolicited review without first clearing the proposal.

Two Decades of Endocrinology, Reviewed

The clearest way to see the journal’s value is to consider what a reader who followed it from its 2006 launch would have watched change. Diabetes care at the launch still centred on metformin, sulfonylureas, insulin and the first thiazolidinediones; within the journal’s lifetime, incretin-based therapies moved from novelty to backbone, SGLT2 inhibitors accumulated cardiovascular and renal outcome evidence that redrew treatment algorithms, continuous glucose monitoring moved from specialist clinics into routine practice, and weight management acquired effective pharmacotherapy that blurred the boundary between diabetology and obesity medicine. A review journal earns its keep in exactly such a period, because guidelines lag trials and trials contradict one another; the expert commentary and five-year-view apparatus exists to tell readers which of the new results a thoughtful specialist would act on now, which need replication, and which are likely to matter most by the end of the decade. The journal’s coverage map — diabetes first, but with thyroid disease, osteoporosis, pituitary and adrenal disorders, reproductive and growth disorders given equal structural dignity — also records a judgement about the specialty itself: that endocrinology is one discipline, held together by hormone physiology, even as its subspecialties acquire separate societies and meetings.

Its later contents show the model still working on new problems. A recent evidence synthesis on prolactinoma, for example, takes a question no single trial will settle — how low prolactin should be driven, and what excessively suppressed levels imply for long-term outcomes — and works through pharmacological and surgical evidence, predictors of remission and recurrence after dopamine-agonist withdrawal, to an expert position a clinician can use. That is the genre at its best: a common tumour, a genuinely contested management detail, a structured literature search across the major databases, and a signed professional judgement at the end. Multiply that pattern across thyroid cancer surveillance, adrenal incidentalomas, osteoporosis treatment sequencing, neuroendocrine tumour therapy and diabetes technology, and the journal’s backfile becomes a dated, citable record of what the specialty believed, and why, at each point in its recent history — a resource for historians of medicine and guideline writers as much as for clinicians. Readers should nonetheless use any individual review with its date and its authors’ disclosures in view: in a fast-moving therapeutic area, a five-year view written six years ago is evidence about the past, and current Taylor & Francis Online listings should always be checked for the newest review of a topic before clinical decisions are based on it.

Position Among Endocrine Journals

It helps to place the journal among its neighbours. At one pole of endocrine publishing sit the large society journals and general medical titles, which publish the landmark trials and guidelines themselves; at another sit the primary-research specialty journals, which publish new cohort, laboratory and imaging studies. Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism occupies the synthesis layer between them and the clinic, alongside the other review titles in its publisher’s series and the review sections of the society journals. Its competitive advantages are structural rather than metric: the enforced commentary and five-year-view elements, which oblige authors to commit to judgements a pure literature summary can avoid; the three-referee double-blind process, heavier than the norm for commissioned reviews; and a commissioning model that can put a review of a practice-changing trial area into the literature faster than an uncommissioned pipeline usually manages. Its limitations are the mirror image of the same choices — it publishes no new primary data, its coverage follows editorial commissioning rather than a systematic remit, and access for non-subscribers is limited to the publisher’s open options, so independent readers may meet a paywall where a fully open-access review title would not present one. Authors weighing it against alternatives should therefore ask a format question before a metrics question: is my contribution a judgement-forming review of an existing evidence base, written by a team entitled to judge it? If yes, this journal is built for exactly that manuscript, and its Q2 standing and two decades of continuous publication say the endocrine community will find it there.

Sources and Verification

This profile is drawn from the journal’s own aims-and-scope and format descriptions as published for the Expert Review programme and carried in medical directory listings of the journal, the publisher’s Taylor & Francis journal presence (title, ISSNs, frequency and journal code), SCImago/Scopus-derived category and quartile data, and the journal record on this site with its OpenAlex indicators. Metric figures are attributed to their sources and years where given, because impact measures change annually; the stable identity facts are the title, publisher, ISSNs, 2006 start and review format documented above.