Section Policies

Consult the policy for the type of contribution you wish to submit. Each policy contains the specific editorial requirements and links to the official templates.

Research Article

🧪 Research Article

Research Articles present original, rigorous, and reproducible results from completed research within the scope of the Revista Productos Naturales (RPN). The manuscript must clearly formulate the scientific problem, describe methods in sufficient detail to allow evaluation and reproduction of the study, present the results transparently, and discuss their contribution in relation to the relevant literature.

Language and metadata

  • The title must be provided in Spanish, English, and Portuguese.
  • The manuscript must include a Resumen, Abstract, and Resumo, each with a maximum of 250 words.
  • Provide 3–6 keywords in English only.
  • All authors and co-authors must be registered individually in OJS, in the same order as they appear in the manuscript. An ORCID identifier is requested for each author.

Structure

  1. Introduction
  2. Materials and Methods
  3. Results and Discussion
  4. Conclusions

When applicable, the manuscript must also include Acknowledgements, Author Contributions (CRediT), Funding, Data Availability, Conflicts of Interest, a declaration on the use of artificial intelligence and automated tools, and References.

Length, figures, tables, and references

RPN does not establish a strict limit on the number of words, figures, tables, or references for Research Articles. The manuscript should be of sufficient length to communicate the study rigorously, clearly, and concisely. Editors may request the reduction of redundant content or the transfer of extensive information to supplementary material.

Graphical Abstract

Submission of a Graphical Abstract as a separate file is recommended. It should communicate the central finding of the study in a clear, original, and visually concise manner. During the editorial transition period, the Graphical Abstract will be recommended rather than mandatory.

Taxonomic identification and traceability

When biological material is used, authors must apply the current nomenclatural code appropriate to the group studied and verify scientific names using recognized taxonomic sources. As applicable, authors must report the identification of the organism, the person or institution responsible for the identification, provenance, material studied, voucher, strain, isolate or collection number, applicable permits, and traceability among specimen, tissue, sample, and sequences.

For algae, fungi, and plants, authors must follow the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Madrid Code); for bacteria and archaea, the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and nomenclatural resources such as LPSN; for animals, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; and for viruses, the current taxonomy of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV).

Recommended taxonomic resources

The resource used for verification should be selected according to the biological group under study. When relevant, authors are encouraged to indicate the resource consulted and the date of access. Specialized resources that may be used include:

Consultation of a database does not replace the evidence used for identification. The manuscript must state who performed or confirmed the identification and the criteria used, as applicable, such as morphological or anatomical characters, chemical data, keys or monographs, molecular sequences, or other sources of evidence. A single database match does not by itself constitute a definitive taxonomic identification.

Sequences and molecular traceability

When new sequences are generated for identification or characterization, they must be deposited in recognized public repositories before publication, with accession numbers provided and linked to the corresponding voucher or strain. For nucleotide sequence data, repositories participating in the international DDBJ/ENA/GenBank collaboration may be used, as appropriate, including GenBank, the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), or the DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ).

When applicable, authors must declare compliance with relevant legislation concerning collection, access to genetic resources, material transfer, prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms, and other access and benefit-sharing requirements.

Data and supplementary material

Authors must include a Data Availability Statement indicating where and how the data supporting the results can be accessed. Whenever appropriate, the use of recognized public repositories and persistent identifiers is recommended.

Information necessary to document or expand the study without interrupting the continuous reading of the manuscript may be uploaded as supplementary material, including complete spectra, chromatograms, calibration curves, additional tables or figures, detailed protocols, alignments, matrices, expanded taxonomic information, diagnostic images, and traceability documentation. Confidential documents or documents subject to legal restrictions must not be published as supplementary material; when necessary, they may be provided confidentially to the editorial team.

Ethics, authorship, and artificial intelligence

Each author's contributions must be declared using the CRediT taxonomy. Authors must declare funding and conflicts of interest. Artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors. When AI tools are used for writing, producing images or graphical elements, data collection, or data analysis, authors must indicate which tool was used and how it was employed. Authors retain full responsibility for the submitted content.

Official templates

Short Article

🧬 Short Communication

Short Communications present original, scientifically supported, focused, and self-contained contributions within the scope of the Revista Productos Naturales (RPN). This format is intended for studies whose results can be communicated rigorously and concisely without requiring the length of a Research Article.

The Short Communication format must not be used to present inadequately supported results. The data and methods must be sufficient to support the conclusions and allow scientific evaluation and, when applicable, reproducibility of the study.

Language and metadata

  • The title must be provided in Spanish, English, and Portuguese.
  • The manuscript must include a Resumen, Abstract, and Resumo, each with a maximum of 200 words.
  • Provide 3–6 keywords in English only.
  • All authors and co-authors must be registered individually in OJS, in the same order as they appear in the manuscript. An ORCID identifier is requested for each author.

Length and limits

  • Main text: maximum 3,000 words.
  • Figures and tables: maximum 4 combined.
  • References: maximum 30.
  • Resumen / Abstract / Resumo: maximum 200 words each.

The main text must remain focused on the central question, finding, or contribution of the study. Extensive information that supports the results but is not essential to continuous reading may be presented as supplementary material.

Structure

  1. Introduction
  2. Materials and Methods
  3. Results and Discussion
  4. Conclusions

When applicable, the manuscript must also include Acknowledgements, Author Contributions (CRediT), Funding, Data Availability, Conflicts of Interest, a declaration on the use of artificial intelligence and automated tools, and References.

Introduction

The Introduction should briefly present the context, scientific problem, objective, and relevance of the study. Because of the concise nature of this format, background information should be limited to what is necessary to understand the contribution presented.

Materials and Methods

The methods must be described in sufficient detail to allow evaluation and reproduction of the study. For previously published methods, the corresponding source must be cited and any modifications must be described.

When applicable, authors must report the experimental design, sample size, replicates, software, statistical tests, assumptions evaluated, measures of uncertainty, and significance level. A value such as p < 0.05 should not be applied automatically when the design or analysis requires another approach.

Taxonomic identification and traceability

When biological material is used, authors must apply the current nomenclatural code appropriate to the group studied and verify scientific names using recognized taxonomic sources. As applicable, authors must report the identification of the organism, the person or institution responsible for the identification, provenance, material studied, voucher, strain, isolate or collection number, applicable permits, and traceability among specimen, tissue, sample, and sequences.

For algae, fungi, and plants, authors must follow the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Madrid Code); for bacteria and archaea, the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and nomenclatural resources such as LPSN; for animals, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; and for viruses, the current taxonomy of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV).

Recommended taxonomic resources

The resource used for verification should be selected according to the biological group under study. When relevant, authors are encouraged to indicate the resource consulted and the date of access. Specialized resources that may be used include:

Consultation of a database does not replace the evidence used for identification. The manuscript must state who performed or confirmed the identification and the criteria used, as applicable, such as morphological or anatomical characters, chemical data, keys or monographs, molecular sequences, or other sources of evidence. A single database match does not by itself constitute a definitive taxonomic identification.

Sequences and molecular traceability

When new sequences are generated for identification or characterization, they must be deposited in recognized public repositories before publication, with accession numbers provided and linked to the corresponding voucher or strain.

For nucleotide sequence data, repositories participating in the international DDBJ/ENA/GenBank collaboration may be used, as appropriate, including GenBank, the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), or the DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ).

When applicable, authors must declare compliance with relevant legislation concerning collection, access to genetic resources, material transfer, prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms, and other access and benefit-sharing requirements.

Results and Discussion

The results must be presented logically and directly in relation to the objective of the study. Tables and figures must be numbered consecutively and cited in the text. The same results should not be duplicated unnecessarily in the text, tables, and figures.

The discussion must interpret the results in relation to the relevant literature, explain their relevance, strengths, and limitations, and clearly establish the contribution of the study. It should remain proportionate to the short format and distinguish the findings obtained from interpretations or hypotheses.

Conclusions

The conclusions must be presented briefly and independently and must derive directly from the results. They should highlight the main contribution of the study without repeating the abstract or introducing new results.

Data and supplementary material

Authors must include a Data Availability Statement indicating where and how the data supporting the results can be accessed. Whenever appropriate, the use of recognized public repositories and persistent identifiers is recommended.

Information that supports the study but is not essential to continuous reading of the Short Communication may be uploaded as supplementary material, including spectra, chromatograms, calibration curves, detailed protocols, extensive analytical data, alignments, matrices, expanded taxonomic information, diagnostic images, and traceability documentation.

Tables, figures, or secondary results that exceed the limits of the short format may be included as supplementary material when they are necessary to document the study adequately. Confidential documents or documents subject to legal restrictions must not be published as supplementary material; when necessary, they may be provided confidentially to the editorial team.

Ethics, authorship, and artificial intelligence

Each author's contributions must be declared using the CRediT taxonomy. Authors must declare funding and conflicts of interest. CRediT provides a structured taxonomy for describing contributions to research outputs.

Artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors. When AI tools are used for writing, producing images or graphical elements, data collection, or data analysis, authors must indicate which tool was used and how it was employed. Authors retain full responsibility for the submitted content.

References

A maximum of 30 references is permitted. References must be relevant and sufficient to support the study, prioritizing recent primary literature without omitting fundamental works. DOI or URL must be provided whenever available.

Official templates

Review Article

đź“š Review Article

A Review Article presents a broad, in-depth, critical, and integrated synthesis of the available knowledge on a clearly defined topic within the scope of the Revista Productos Naturales (RPN). Its purpose is to analyze the current state of knowledge, integrate findings from the scientific literature, identify advances, trends, controversies, limitations, and knowledge gaps, and contribute to establishing priorities or future research directions.

A Review Article must go beyond the compilation or description of publications. Authors are expected to organize, compare, evaluate, and critically interpret the available evidence, providing a coherent view of the field and identifying the scientific, methodological, or applied implications derived from the analysis.

Manuscript characteristics

The manuscript should:

  • address a clearly defined topic relevant to the scope of RPN;
  • provide sufficiently broad and representative coverage of the available knowledge;
  • critically integrate the findings of relevant studies, avoiding a sequential description of individual publications;
  • compare, when appropriate, methodologies, results, interpretations, and scientific approaches;
  • identify advances, trends, controversies, inconsistencies, limitations, and knowledge gaps;
  • clearly distinguish between established findings, interpretations of the literature, and inferences made by the authors;
  • incorporate both recent literature and fundamental works necessary to understand the development of the field;
  • discuss the scientific, methodological, or applied implications derived from the evidence analyzed; and
  • identify opportunities, priorities, and future research directions.

The review should maintain a balanced perspective of the field and should not be predominantly limited to publications from the authors’ own research group.

Literature search and selection strategy

Every Review Article must describe with sufficient transparency how the literature was identified and selected. At a minimum, the manuscript should indicate:

  • the main databases or information sources consulted;
  • the terms, keywords, or general search combinations used;
  • the period covered by the search, when applicable;
  • the main criteria used to select the literature;
  • exclusion criteria, when applicable; and
  • any other methodological consideration necessary to understand the scope of the review.

This requirement is intended to improve the transparency and traceability of the literature search and does not imply that all RPN Review Articles must adopt a systematic review methodology.

When a manuscript is specifically presented as a systematic review, meta-analysis, scoping review, or another formal evidence-synthesis methodology, the appropriate methods and reporting guidelines for that design must also be followed.

Recommended structure

The organization of the manuscript may be adapted to the specific characteristics of the topic. The following general structure is recommended:

  1. Introduction: presentation of the topic, essential background, scientific relevance, justification for the review, objective, and delimitation of its scope.
  2. Literature search and selection strategy: description of the sources consulted, search strategy, period covered, and selection and exclusion criteria, when applicable.
  3. Overview of the field: contextualization of the development of the area and integrated presentation of the current state of knowledge, major advances, and relevant lines of research.
  4. Thematic development: analysis organized into subsections appropriate to the topic. The available evidence should be integrated, compared, and critically interpreted rather than presented as an enumeration of individual studies.
  5. Integration and critical analysis: cross-cutting synthesis of the evidence and identification of patterns, divergences, controversies, strengths, limitations, biases, or knowledge gaps.
  6. Perspectives and future directions: identification of opportunities, priorities, methodological needs, and relevant questions for future research.
  7. Conclusions: synthesis of the main contributions of the review and their implications for the field.

Editorial limits

  • Length: maximum 8,000 words in the main text.
  • Resumen / Abstract / Resumo: maximum 200 words each, in a single paragraph.
  • Keywords: 3 to 6 terms, in English.
  • References: minimum 50.
  • Tables and figures: maximum combined total of 8.

The minimum number of references is intended to ensure a sufficiently broad bibliographic basis for evaluating the state of knowledge. However, meeting the minimum requirement of 50 references does not replace the need for a critical, current, and integrated synthesis of the literature.

No rigid maximum number of references is established. The bibliography should be relevant to the scope of the review and sufficiently representative to support the analysis and its conclusions.

Tables and figures

Tables, figures, schemes, and other graphical representations should contribute directly to the synthesis, comparison, integration, or critical interpretation of the literature.

Authors are particularly encouraged to use original graphical elements that integrate complex information, compare approaches, methodologies, or results, represent trends or relationships, synthesize mechanisms, pathways, or conceptual models, or visually identify knowledge gaps and future research directions.

Excessively long tables whose sole purpose is to list publications, species, compounds, or results without providing additional synthesis should be avoided.

Difference from a Minireview

A Review Article and a Minireview both adopt a critical approach to the scientific literature but differ fundamentally in scope and depth.

A Minireview provides a concise and focused critical synthesis of a specific topic or recent development. A Review Article provides a broader, deeper, and more integrated assessment of the state of knowledge, supported by substantially greater literature coverage and intended to provide a comprehensive view of the field or defined topic.

Difference from a Perspective Article

The primary focus of a Review Article is the existing state of knowledge and its critical and integrated analysis.

A Perspective Article, in contrast, uses the available scientific evidence as the foundation for developing and defending an original and forward-looking interpretation, position, thesis, or hypothesis.

Manuscripts not suitable for this section

The following will not be considered Review Articles:

  • manuscripts whose primary purpose is to report original unpublished experimental results;
  • merely descriptive bibliographic compilations;
  • manuscripts limited to listing studies, species, compounds, activities, or results without critical integration;
  • opinion or argumentative manuscripts whose contribution would be more appropriate for a Perspective Article;
  • reviews that are excessively narrow in scope and would be more appropriate for a Minireview; or
  • manuscripts whose contribution clearly corresponds to another RPN section.

Evaluation

Review Articles are subject to the editorial and peer-review process of RPN. Evaluation will give particular consideration to the relevance of the topic, clarity of the objectives and scope of the review, breadth and representativeness of the literature used, transparency of the search and selection strategy, currency and quality of the sources, depth of the critical analysis, ability to integrate the evidence, balanced treatment of controversies or divergent interpretations, well-supported identification of knowledge gaps, and relevance of the perspectives and future directions proposed.

Manuscripts may be submitted directly by authors or invited by the Editorial Committee.

Templates

Minireview

🔍 Minireview

A Minireview is a concise and focused review article that critically analyzes, synthesizes, and integrates the scientific literature on a specific topic within the scope of Revista Productos Naturales. Its purpose is to provide an up-to-date overview of the state of knowledge, identify relevant advances, trends, controversies, limitations, or knowledge gaps, and outline perspectives for future research.

The manuscript should address a clearly defined question, problem, or topic and be supported by relevant and current scientific literature, without excluding seminal studies that are essential for understanding the subject. A Minireview should provide a critical and integrated synthesis of the available evidence, rather than a simple compilation, enumeration, or sequential description of individual publications.

Literature search and selection strategy

Authors should briefly describe the strategy used to identify and select the literature included in the review, indicating the main information sources or databases consulted, search terms, the period covered, and, when applicable, the criteria used to select relevant publications.

This requirement is intended to promote transparency in the review process but does not necessarily imply the use of a systematic review protocol.

General requirements

  • Maximum length: 3,500 words, excluding Resumen, Abstract, references, tables, figures, and their legends.
  • Resumen and Abstract: maximum 150 words each.
  • Palabras clave / Keywords: 3 to 6.
  • References: maximum 50.
  • Tables and figures: maximum combined total of 4.
  • Thematic structure: flexible and adapted to the subject of the review.
  • Conclusions and perspectives: required.

When relevant, authors are encouraged to incorporate and discuss contributions from Latin America and other pertinent regions, placing them within the context of the international literature.

Tables and figures

Tables and figures should contribute directly to the synthesis, comparison, or critical interpretation of the information. They should be cited and discussed in the text, numbered consecutively, and accompanied by informative titles or legends.

Excessively extensive tables used solely as lists of publications, compounds, or results should be avoided. When previously published material is reproduced or adapted, the source must be properly acknowledged, and applicable copyright and licensing conditions must be respected.

Whenever possible, authors are encouraged to prepare original figures specifically for the Minireview.

Conclusions and perspectives

The manuscript should conclude with a Conclusions and perspectives section that summarizes the main findings, identifies relevant limitations, controversies, or gaps in current knowledge, and, when appropriate, proposes opportunities or priorities for future research.

This section should not merely repeat information already presented in the thematic development of the manuscript.

Peer review

Minireviews are subject to the peer-review process established by Revista Productos Naturales. Reviewers should have expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript and provide an objective, critical, and constructive assessment.

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript and disclose any potential conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Evaluation criteria

Reviewers will consider the following criteria in particular:

  1. Relevance and scope of the topic: alignment with the journal's scope, scientific relevance, and appropriate delimitation for the Minireview format.
  2. Currency and relevance of the literature: adequate representation of relevant knowledge, inclusion of recent literature, and consideration of seminal studies when necessary.
  3. Transparency of the literature search: clarity and coherence of the strategy used to identify and select the literature.
  4. Quality of the critical synthesis: ability to integrate and compare the literature and identify trends, similarities, differences, advances, controversies, and limitations, while avoiding a sequential description of individual publications.
  5. Depth and rigor of the analysis: strength of the interpretations and arguments and their appropriate support in the scientific literature.
  6. Identification of knowledge gaps and perspectives: recognition of limitations or insufficiently studied areas and reasoned formulation of perspectives for future research.
  7. Organization and coherence: clear relationship among the objective, literature search strategy, thematic development, and conclusions.
  8. Quality of tables and figures: effective contribution to the synthesis, comparison, or interpretation of information.
  9. Quality of scientific writing: clarity, precision, and appropriate use of terminology, nomenclature, symbols, and units.
  10. Compliance with editorial requirements: adherence to the requirements concerning length, structure, references, tables, figures, final declarations, and other requirements established for this section.

The editorial decision will take into account the overall scientific and editorial quality of the manuscript and may require revisions before a final decision on publication is made.

Official templates

Manuscripts must be prepared using the official Minireview template of Revista Productos Naturales.

Perspective Article

đź”­ Perspective Article

A Perspective Article presents a critical, evidence-based, and forward-looking scientific interpretation of a specific topic within the scope of the Revista Productos Naturales (RPN). Its purpose is to develop a scientifically grounded perspective, thesis, interpretation, or hypothesis that contributes to understanding a problem, debate, advance, or emerging area and helps identify implications, open questions, or future research directions.

Unlike a Research Article, this type of contribution is not primarily intended to report original experimental results. Nor is it intended to provide an exhaustive review of the literature. Available scientific evidence should be used selectively and critically to support the authors’ argumentation and the perspective being developed.

Manuscript characteristics

The manuscript should:

  • address a clearly defined topic relevant to the scope of RPN;
  • present a clearly identifiable scientific perspective, thesis, interpretation, or hypothesis;
  • support its argumentation with scientific evidence and relevant literature;
  • critically analyze, when appropriate, advances, limitations, controversies, inconsistencies, or knowledge gaps;
  • clearly distinguish between available evidence and the interpretations, inferences, or hypotheses proposed by the authors;
  • provide an original interpretation or argument that goes beyond describing or compiling the existing literature;
  • discuss the scientific, methodological, or applied implications of the proposed perspective; and
  • identify, when relevant, hypotheses, open questions, priorities, or future research directions.

Recommended structure

The organization of the manuscript may be adapted to the nature of the topic and argumentation. The following general structure is recommended:

  1. Introduction: context, scientific problem or debate, objective, delimitation of the topic, and presentation of the central perspective, thesis, interpretation, or hypothesis.
  2. Development of the perspective: selective and critical integration of the evidence and concepts required to construct the argument. This section may be organized using thematic subsections.
  3. Critical analysis and argumentation: explicit development of the authors’ scientific position, clearly distinguishing established findings, interpretations, inferences, and hypotheses.
  4. Implications and future directions: discussion of the scientific, methodological, or applied implications of the perspective and, when appropriate, formulation of new hypotheses, questions, or research priorities.
  5. Conclusions: synthesis of the main arguments and the conceptual contribution of the perspective.

Editorial limits

  • Length: maximum 4,000 words in the main text.
  • Resumen / Abstract / Resumo: maximum 200 words each, in a single paragraph.
  • Keywords: 3 to 6 terms, in English.
  • References: maximum 50.
  • Tables and figures: maximum combined total of 3.

References should be relevant and sufficient to support the argumentation. Authors are encouraged to prioritize recent primary literature without excluding fundamental works necessary for understanding the topic. Tables, schemes, and figures should contribute directly to the argumentation, conceptual integration, or forward-looking development of the perspective.

Difference from a Minireview

A Perspective Article should not be confused with a Minireview. Whereas a Minireview primarily aims to concisely synthesize and analyze the available knowledge on a defined topic, a Perspective Article uses scientific evidence as the basis for developing and defending an original and forward-looking interpretation, position, thesis, or hypothesis. Its principal contribution therefore lies in the scientific argumentation and perspective proposed by the authors, rather than in the comprehensiveness of the literature review.

Manuscripts not suitable for this section

Manuscripts whose primary purpose is to report original experimental results, merely descriptive literature reviews, opinion pieces without sufficient scientific support, or manuscripts whose contribution clearly corresponds to another RPN section will not be considered Perspective Articles.

Evaluation

Perspective Articles are subject to the regular editorial and peer-review process of RPN. Evaluation will give particular consideration to the relevance and timeliness of the topic, the clarity and originality of the proposed perspective, the strength of the argumentation, the quality and relevance of the evidence used, the rigor of the critical analysis, and the manuscript’s ability to provide new interpretations, hypotheses, or future research directions.

Manuscripts may be submitted directly by authors or invited by the Editorial Committee.

Templates

Conference Abstract

🔍 Conference Abstract

A brief scientific contribution intended primarily for the publication of work presented at the Colombian Congress on Natural Products and at other scientific events associated with the journal.

The manuscript should be structured as a brief scientific article and clearly present the purpose of the work, the essential methodological aspects, the main results, and the most relevant conclusions.

  • Authors and co-authors: the person submitting the manuscript must register all authors and co-authors of the work in OJS, following the authorship order shown in the manuscript. It is not sufficient for co-authors' names to appear only in the submitted file. For each author or co-author, the first and last names, institutional affiliation, email address, and ORCID identifier must be entered in OJS.
  • Title: must be provided in Spanish, English, and Portuguese.
  • Manuscript length: the main body of the abstract may contain up to 500 words.
  • References: a maximum of 4 relevant references.
  • Figure: a maximum of one (1) figure is permitted. A maximum width of 16 cm, a minimum resolution of 300 dpi, and JPG, PNG, or TIFF format are recommended. Text, symbols, and other graphical elements must be clearly legible at the final publication size.
  • Table: a maximum of one (1) table is permitted. The table must be concise and self-explanatory and should complement, without duplicating, the information presented in the text or figure.
  • Keywords: include 3 to 5 keywords in English only, separated by commas.
  • Brief abstracts for OJS metadata: must be provided in Spanish, English, and Portuguese, with a maximum of 50 words each. These brief abstracts correspond to the submission metadata and are independent of the main body of the conference abstract.

Official templates for Conference Abstracts:

Editorial

đź“ť Editorial

An Editorial is a brief editorial, institutional, scientific, or strategic contribution intended to address matters of particular relevance to the Revista Productos Naturales (RPN) and its scientific community. It may communicate editorial guidance, analyze relevant changes or challenges in the field, present journal initiatives, or promote good practices related to the quality, integrity, and communication of natural products research.

Editorials may be written by the Editor, members of the Editorial Team or Editorial Board, or invited researchers and specialists whose expertise is relevant to the topic addressed.

This section is published exclusively at the initiative or invitation of the RPN Editorial Team. Unsolicited submissions to the Editorial section are not accepted.

Purpose and scope

An Editorial may be used, among other purposes, to:

  • communicate or explain RPN policies, editorial guidance, and editorial developments;
  • present new standards, criteria, or good practices relevant to scientific research and publishing;
  • briefly analyze scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial challenges of particular importance to the natural products community;
  • introduce special issues, thematic collections, initiatives, or relevant journal developments;
  • address matters related to the quality, integrity, reproducibility, transparency, or communication of research;
  • present initiatives, priorities, or guidance from the Editorial Team; or
  • address other matters of particular relevance to RPN and its scientific community when the Editorial Team considers the Editorial format to be the most appropriate.

Manuscript characteristics

The Editorial should:

  • address a clearly defined topic relevant to RPN or to the scientific community served by the journal;
  • present its purpose and main message clearly, directly, and concisely;
  • adequately support scientific, technical, ethical, or editorial statements that require documentary evidence;
  • clearly distinguish among facts, evidence, interpretation, and editorial position when applicable;
  • avoid promotional, personal, or speculative statements that lack sufficient support; and
  • maintain an academic, constructive tone appropriate for a scientific publication.

Structure

The Editorial has a flexible structure adapted to the nature and purpose of the text. A conventional scientific article structure or the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) format is not required.

When appropriate, the manuscript may be organized using brief subheadings that facilitate reading. The text should conclude with a message, recommendation, guidance, or final consideration clearly related to the purpose of the Editorial.

Editorial limits

  • Length: maximum 1,500 words in the main text.
  • Resumen / Abstract / Resumo: not required.
  • Keywords: not required.
  • References: maximum 20.
  • Tables and figures: maximum combined total of 2.

References should be included only when necessary to support the statements, background, or recommendations presented. Tables and figures should be used selectively and only when they provide information essential to understanding the Editorial message.

Difference from a Perspective Article

An Editorial and a Perspective Article serve different functions within RPN.

A Perspective Article develops and defends an original and forward-looking scientific interpretation, position, thesis, or hypothesis supported by the available evidence.

An Editorial, in contrast, primarily serves an editorial, institutional, normative, strategic, or scientific-guidance purpose for the journal and its community. Therefore, the Editorial section should not be used as an alternative to a Perspective Article or as a means of circumventing its editorial requirements.

Manuscripts not suitable for this section

The following are not suitable for the Editorial section:

  • manuscripts primarily intended to report original research results;
  • reviews or extensive syntheses of the literature;
  • manuscripts whose primary contribution is more appropriate for a Perspective Article;
  • letters, comments, or responses concerning published articles that correspond to another editorial category;
  • promotional, institutional, or personal texts without a clearly justified editorial or scientific contribution;
  • contributions not solicited by the Editorial Team for this section.

Editorial evaluation

Editorials are subject to evaluation by the RPN Editorial Team, which will assess the relevance of the topic, clarity of the message, rigor of the statements, quality of the argumentation, adequacy of the sources used, and relevance of the contribution to the journal and its scientific community.

When justified by the scientific, technical, methodological, or ethical nature of the content, the Editorial Team may request an external expert evaluation before making a publication decision.

Authorship, transparency, and conflicts of interest

Authors must comply with the general authorship criteria of RPN and declare any financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflict of interest related to the Editorial content. When applicable, funding sources and the use of artificial intelligence or automated tools must also be declared in accordance with the journal's general policies.

Templates

Letters to the Editor

✉️ Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor are brief scientific communications intended primarily to comment on, question, clarify, complement, or provide a well-founded discussion of articles published in the Revista Productos Naturales (RPN).

Their purpose is to promote post-publication scientific dialogue and provide readers with a formal forum for observations, interpretations, arguments, or clarifications that make a substantive contribution to the discussion of content published by the journal.

Exceptionally, the Editorial Team may consider letters addressing a scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial matter of particular relevance to RPN, even when they do not respond directly to a published article, provided that their length and nature are appropriate for this format.

Characteristics of the Letter

A Letter to the Editor should:

  • present a clearly defined argument, observation, clarification, or question;
  • be supported by scientific evidence or verifiable arguments when appropriate;
  • clearly identify the RPN article under discussion when the Letter responds to a specific publication;
  • focus on relevant scientific, methodological, interpretative, or editorial aspects;
  • provide elements that expand, clarify, question, or enrich the scientific discussion;
  • maintain an academic, respectful, constructive tone focused on scientific arguments; and
  • be concise and limited to aspects directly related to the purpose of the communication.

Letters related to articles published in RPN

When a Letter to the Editor refers to an article published in RPN, it must clearly identify the publication being discussed and specify the aspects that prompted the communication.

The Editorial Team may forward the Letter to the authors of the article under discussion and offer them the opportunity to submit a Reply to the Letter. When appropriate, the Letter and the Reply may be published in a linked manner to facilitate understanding of the scientific exchange.

The authors’ Reply should focus on the arguments raised in the Letter and will be subject to the same principles of concision, scientific rigor, academic respect, and transparency.

Structure

Letters to the Editor have a free and concise structure. A conventional scientific article organization or an Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure is not required.

The text should directly present the purpose of the communication, develop the main argument or observation, and conclude with a statement or consideration clearly related to the discussion raised.

Editorial limits

  • Length: maximum 600 words in the main text.
  • Resumen / Abstract / Resumo: not required.
  • Keywords: not required.
  • References: maximum 6.
  • Tables and figures: maximum 1 item in total.
  • Authors: maximum 5.

References should be limited to those strictly necessary to support the discussion. A table or figure should be included only when essential to understanding the argument and should not be used to artificially expand the scope of the Letter.

Original results

A Letter to the Editor should not be used to report a complete original study or substantial experimental results that would be more appropriate for a Research Article or Short Article.

Limited data or analyses may be mentioned only when indispensable to support the argument and when they can be presented with sufficient transparency within the limits of this format.

Difference from other sections

A Letter to the Editor is primarily a brief mechanism for post-publication scientific discussion and should not be confused with other RPN editorial categories.

A Perspective Article develops an original and forward-looking scientific interpretation, position, thesis, or hypothesis with substantially greater argumentative development.

An Editorial primarily serves an editorial, institutional, normative, strategic, or scientific-guidance purpose and is published at the initiative or invitation of the Editorial Team.

Manuscripts not suitable for this section

The following are not suitable as Letters to the Editor:

  • research articles or communications reporting substantial original results;
  • literature reviews, minireviews, or perspective manuscripts;
  • general opinions without sufficiently supported scientific argumentation;
  • personal attacks, disparaging statements, or discussions directed at individuals rather than their arguments or publications;
  • personal, employment-related, institutional conflicts, or authorship disputes;
  • allegations of scientific misconduct that should be handled through the journal’s research integrity and publication ethics procedures;
  • administrative correspondence, inquiries regarding submission status, or requests addressed to the Editorial Team;
  • content whose length or nature clearly corresponds to another RPN section.

Editorial evaluation

Letters to the Editor are subject to evaluation by the RPN Editorial Team, which will consider their relevance to the scientific discussion, clarity, rigor of the argumentation, relevance of the evidence used, originality of the contribution, and appropriateness of the academic tone.

When justified by the scientific, methodological, technical, or ethical nature of the discussion, the Editorial Team may request an external expert evaluation before making a publication decision.

Publication of a Letter to the Editor or a Reply to the Letter is subject to the editorial decision of RPN. Receipt of a Letter or Reply does not necessarily imply publication.

Authorship, transparency, and conflicts of interest

Authors must comply with the general authorship criteria of RPN and declare any financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflict of interest related to the content of the Letter. When applicable, funding sources and the use of artificial intelligence or automated tools must also be declared in accordance with the journal’s general policies.

Templates