Biological Reviews

Publisher: Cambridge Philosophical Society, Wiley

Journal description

Current impact factor: 9.67

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 9.67
2013 Impact Factor 9.79
2012 Impact Factor 10.256
2011 Impact Factor 9.067
2010 Impact Factor 6.574
2009 Impact Factor 6.625
2008 Impact Factor 8.755
2007 Impact Factor 8.833
2006 Impact Factor 5.565
2005 Impact Factor 6.038
2004 Impact Factor 5.325
2003 Impact Factor 4.925
2002 Impact Factor 5.73
2001 Impact Factor 5.303
1996 Impact Factor 3.243
1995 Impact Factor 2.429
1994 Impact Factor 3.129
1993 Impact Factor 2.655
1992 Impact Factor 2.938

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 11.20
Cited half-life 8.80
Immediacy index 2.59
Eigenfactor 0.02
Article influence 4.49
Other titles Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Online), Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Biological reviews, Biol. rev
ISSN 1469-185X
OCLC 41882975
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details


  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Some journals have separate policies, please check with each journal directly
    • On author's personal website, institutional repositories, arXiv, AgEcon, PhilPapers, PubMed Central, RePEc or Social Science Research Network
    • Author's pre-print may not be updated with Publisher's Version/PDF
    • Author's pre-print must acknowledge acceptance for publication
    • Non-Commercial
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Publisher source must be acknowledged with citation
    • Must link to publisher version with set statement (see policy)
    • If OnlineOpen is available, BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC authors, may self-archive after 12 months
    • If OnlineOpen is available, AHRC and ESRC authors, may self-archive after 24 months
    • Publisher last contacted on 07/08/2014
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Wiley'
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • Acga Cheng · Sean Mayes · Gemedo Dalle · Sebsebe Demissew · Festo Massawe
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are more than 50000 known edible plants in the world, yet two-thirds of global plant-derived food is provided by only three major cereals - maize (Zea mays), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rice (Oryza sativa). The dominance of this triad, now considered truly global food commodities, has led to a decline in the number of crop species contributing to global food supplies. Our dependence on only a few crop species limits our capability to deal with challenges posed by the adverse effects of climate change and the consequences of dietary imbalance. Emerging evidence suggests that climate change will cause shifts in crop production and yield loss due to more unpredictable and hostile weather patterns. One solution to this problem is through the wider use of underutilised (also called orphan or minor) crops to diversify agricultural systems and food sources. In addition to being highly nutritious, underutilised crops are resilient in natural and agricultural conditions, making them a suitable surrogate to the major crops. One such crop is teff [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter], a warm-season annual cereal with the tiniest grain in the world. Native to Ethiopia and often the sustenance for local small farmers, teff thrives in both moisture-stressed and waterlogged soil conditions, making it a dependable staple within and beyond its current centre of origin. Today, teff is deemed a healthy wheat alternative in the West and is sought-after by health aficionados and those with coeliac disease or gluten sensitivity. The blooming market for healthy food is breathing new life into this underutilised crop, which has received relatively limited attention from mainstream research perhaps due to its 'orphan crop' status. This review presents the past, present and future of an ancient grain with a potential beyond its size.
    Biological Reviews 10/2015; DOI:10.1111/brv.12225
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Plants produce and utilize a great diversity of chemicals for a variety of physiological and ecological purposes. Many of these chemicals defend plants against herbivores, pathogens and competitors. The location of these chemicals varies within the plant, some are located entirely within plant tissues, others exist in the air- (or water-) space around plants, and still others are secreted onto plant surfaces as exudates. I argue herein that the location of a given defensive chemical has profound implications for its ecological function; specifically, I focus on the characteristics of chemical defences secreted onto plant surfaces. Drawing from a broad literature encompassing ecology, evolution, taxonomy and physiology, I found that these external chemical defences (ECDs) are common and widespread in plants and algae; hundreds of examples have been detailed, yet they are not delineated as a separate class from internal chemical defences (ICDs). I propose a novel typology for ECDs and, using existing literature, explore the ecological consequences of the hypothesized unique characteristics of ECDs. The axis of total or proportional investment in ECDs versus ICDs should be considered as one axis of investment by a plant, in the same way as quantitative versus qualitative chemical defences or induced versus constitutive defences is considered. The ease of manipulating ECDs in many plant systems presents a powerful tool to help test plant defence theory (e.g. optimal defence). The framework outlined here integrates various disciplines of botany and ecology and suggests a need for further examinations of exudates in a variety of contexts, as well as recognition of the effects of within-plant localization of defences. Biological Reviews © 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society.
    Biological Reviews 08/2015; DOI:10.1111/brv.12212
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bees are fundamentally important for pollination services and declines in populations could have significant economic and environmental implications. Pesticide exposure and pathogen infection are recognised as potential stressors impacting upon bee populations and recently there has been a surge in research on pesticide-disease interactions to reflect environmentally realistic scenarios better. We critically analyse the findings on pesticide-disease interactions, including effects on the survival, pathogen loads and immunity of bees, and assess the suitability of various endpoints to inform our mechanistic understanding of these interactions. We show that pesticide exposure and pathogen infection have not yet been found to interact to affect worker survival under field-realistic scenarios. Colony-level implications of pesticide effects on Nosema infections, viral loads and honey bee immunity remain unclear as these effects have been observed in a laboratory setting only using a small range of pesticide exposures, generally exceeding those likely to occur in the natural environment, and assessing a highly selected series of immune-related endpoints. Future research priorities include the need for a better understanding of pesticide effects on the antimicrobial peptide (AMP) component of an individual's immune response and on social defence behaviours. Interactions between pesticide exposure and bacterial and fungal infections have yet to be addressed. The paucity of studies in non-Apis bee species is a further major knowledge gap. © 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society.
    Biological Reviews 07/2015; DOI:10.1111/brv.12206