Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Disorders (JNND) is dedicated to maintaining rigorous academic standards through a structured peer review process. Peer review ensures that only scientifically sound, original, and ethically valid manuscripts are published.

Type of Review

JNND employs a double-blind peer review system. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to maintain fairness and impartiality.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully selected based on:

  • Expertise in the subject area
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Past reviewing performance and timeliness
  • Diversity in geographic and institutional representation

Review Process and Timeline

  • Initial editorial screening for relevance, formatting, and originality
  • Assignment to two or more expert reviewers
  • Reviewer evaluation covering methodology, ethics, novelty, and clarity
  • Editorial decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject
  • Average timeline: 3–5 weeks from submission to first decision

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback
  • Respect confidentiality of manuscript content
  • Identify potential ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data manipulation)
  • Disclose conflicts of interest that may influence judgment

Author Responsibilities

  • Respond to reviewer comments promptly and respectfully
  • Revise manuscripts as required, clearly documenting changes
  • Provide additional data or clarifications when requested

Conflict of Interest Management

Editors, reviewers, and authors must declare any competing interests. Manuscripts with conflicts are reassigned to ensure objective evaluation.

JNND follows COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Unethical behavior, such as breach of confidentiality or biased reviews, is taken seriously and may result in removal from the reviewer pool.

Transparency and Accountability

While reviews remain anonymous, JNND may publish aggregated review metrics (e.g., average decision times) for transparency. Authors receive detailed reviewer reports to improve their manuscripts.

FAQs

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes. Authors may recommend potential reviewers, but final selection remains with the editorial board.

Are review reports made public?

No. Reports are shared only with authors and editors, unless otherwise agreed for transparency initiatives.

What if a reviewer misses the deadline?

Replacement reviewers may be assigned to prevent unnecessary delays.