Neuroscience Research Notes

When a new submission is received, the editorial assistant will check on the formatting of the manuscript to ensure it matches the standard of the journal’s requirements. Qualified articles will be assigned to an Editor to assess the suitability of the article for NeurosciRN. After passing all the initial scientific merits, in-house formatting standard and requirements, the editor will initiate a single-blinded review protocol, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.

All articles must be reviewed by at least 2 reviewers. Peer reviewers are to be suggested by the authors. The managing editor will decide on the suitability of the suggested peer reviewers or invite other peer reviewers from the relevant field of expertise to review the article. Editors or members of the editorial board can also act as reviewers as long as they are not involved as the managing editor who oversee the peer reviewing process of the article. The managing editor will make the decision on the submission assigned to him/her. More than 50% of peer reviewers must agree on the acceptance before a formal acceptance decision is made by the managing editor. Decision made by the managing editor is final.

In the case of revision, the revised manuscript will be returned to the same managing editor for assessment. For any scientific dispute or technical revision of the manuscript, the managing editor will request the former peer reviewers to re-assess the revised manuscript to ensure satisfactory changes have been made to meet the scientific merits for acceptance.

All articles are subjected to peer reviewing except for articles submitted to Editorial or News and Views sections, where members of the editorial board will save to evaluate the content and suitability of the manuscript.

NeurosciRN aims to keep the duration of peer-reviewing under 6-week. A decision by the assigned editor shall not take more than a week after all reports have been obtained from reviewers. NeurosciRN also adopted a constructive peer-reviewing policy where peer-reviewers are requested to suggest improvements to the manuscript under evaluation. Manuscript will be rejected when the methodology employed in the study was flawed and the conclusion made were not supported by the results. Other reasons for rejection include plagiarism, falsification of results and conducting a study on animal or human without an approval from the ethical committee board approval.