Get your Human Reproduction Open paper right the first time: a ready-made structure with the right abstract and citations, so editors see your science, not formatting slips.
4.9
Authored by Sumalatha Gangadhar | Published on 13 August, 2026
Submitting to Human Reproduction Open goes smoothly when your draft already matches the journal's own rules. Editors screen new manuscripts against the Human Reproduction Open guide for authors before peer review, so formatting, structure, and required statements should be right on the first draft rather than repaired during upload. This template sets that structure up for you.
It is a manuscript shell aligned to Human Reproduction Open. It covers front matter, the abstract the journal expects, a body organized to the journal's article types, and a reference list in the journal's required style. Confirm current scope and article types on the Human Reproduction Open journal page before you draft.
Prepare the title, authors, affiliations, and ORCID iDs. Write the abstract to the journal's rule and word limit, organize the body to the article type, and apply the required reference style from the first citation. Complete every declaration (ethics, competing interests, funding, data availability) the Human Reproduction Open guide for authors lists, and cite figures and tables in order.
The common failure modes are formatting or reference style that does not match the guide for authors, missing required statements, and an incomplete portal checklist. Clear all three against the Human Reproduction Open guide for authors before you submit.
The shell mirrors what editorial staff check first: article-type fit, the abstract rules, required declarations, and the journal's reference style. For more detail see the author resources. When your draft is ready, upload it through ScholarOne (Manuscript Central).
| Element | Hum Reproduction Open requirement |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Structured extended abstract required for most article types, with specific mandatory headings by type. No explicit word limit stated for most types. Clinical studies: Extended structured abstract with headings: Study question; Summary answer; What is known already; Study design, size, duration; Participants/materials, setting, methods; Main results and the role of chance; Limitations, reasons for caution; Wider implications of the findings; Funding; Disclosures; Trial registration number. Basic science studies: Extended structured abstract with headings: Study question; Summary answer; What is known already; Study design, size, duration; Participants/materials, setting, methods; Main results and the role of chance; Large scale data; Limitations, reasons for caution; Wider implications of the findings; Funding; Disclosures. RCTs: Extended structured abstract with headings: Study question; Summary answer; What is known already; Study design, size, duration; Participants/materials, setting, methods; Main results and the role of chance; Limitations, reasons for caution; Wider implications of the findings; Funding; Disclosures; Trial registration number; Trial registration date; of first patient's enrolment. Systematic reviews: Extended structured abstract with headings: Study question; Summary answer; What is known already; Participants/materials, setting, methods; Main results and the role of chance; Large scale data; Limitations, reasons for caution; Wider implications of the findings; Funding; Disclosures; Registration number. Protocols: Extended structured abstract with headings: Study question; What is known already; Study design, size, duration; Participants/materials, setting, methods; Funding; Disclosures; Trial registration number; Trial registration date; of first patient's enrolment. Narrative reviews: Structured abstract 400-500 words with headings: Background, Rationale/Objectives, Outcomes, Wider implications. Case reports: Unstructured abstract (no word limit stated). Opinions and debates: Unstructured abstract (no word limit stated) |
| Main text | for most article types. Opinions and debates: generally 3000-4000 words. Letters to the Editor: not more than 1000 words including references |
| Declarations | Ethics approval/consent as applicable; competing interests; funding; data availability |
| Figures/tables | Publication-ready; cited in order |
| Supplemental | Upload separately when used |
| Keywords | Between 5 and 10 keywords must be supplied by the author |
| References | Author-date (Harvard-style) format: in-text citations by author surname and date (first author et al. if more than two authors); reference list alphabetically ordered; format: Authors. Title. Journal. Date; Volume: pg-pg |
| Peer review | Single-blind peer review (reviewers are aware of authors' identities but not vice-versa) |
| Submission | mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hropen |
Read the Human Reproduction Open guide for authors once before drafting and once before upload. Draft the abstract after results are stable. Set the reference style before adding citations. Keep a cover letter that states your contribution and fit to Human Reproduction Open in under a page.
Skim two or three recent Hum Reproduction Open papers to calibrate depth and figure style. Make the novelty clear in the first two pages. Deposit data and code when the policy on the Human Reproduction Open journal page requires it. Disclose any preprint or conference version with identifiers in the cover letter.
Do one focused pass against the Human Reproduction Open guide for authors: scope, length, reference style, required declarations, and figure quality. Then submit through ScholarOne (Manuscript Central).