  |
| ISSN |
| Print: 2227-0892 |
| Online: 2617-8966 |
| TEMPLATES & FORMS |
| Manuscript Template |
| Copyright Agreement Form |
| GUIDELINES |
| For Authors |
| For Reviewers |
| For Editors |
| ABSTRACTING & INDEXING |
| EMBASE |
| Google Scholar |
| Crossref |
| Scilit |
| VISITOR STATISTICS |
| |
Peer Review Process
The National Journal of Neurology is committed to maintaining a rigorous and fair peer review system that ensures the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of all published work. The journal follows a structured multi-stage review process designed to support authors while safeguarding academic integrity.
Initial Submission and Editorial Screening
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are first reviewed by the editorial office to confirm that they comply with the journal’s submission guidelines. At this stage, attention is given to formatting, completeness, ethical declarations, and overall suitability for the journal’s scope. Submissions that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further consideration.
Once these checks are complete, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript’s academic merit. Papers that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient originality, or do not meet minimum scholarly standards may be declined without external review. This initial decision is typically made promptly to allow authors to seek alternative publication venues if necessary.
Assignment to Handling Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor with expertise in the relevant field. The handling editor oversees the review process, selects appropriate reviewers, and serves as the main point of contact between the journal and the authors during the evaluation stage.
Selection of Reviewers
The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous. Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the subject matter. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and familiarity with the topic.
Efforts are made to avoid conflicts of interest. Reviewers are asked to disclose any potential conflicts and to decline the invitation if they feel unable to provide an objective assessment.
Review Process
Reviewers are asked to provide a detailed and constructive evaluation of the manuscript within a reasonable timeframe. Their assessment generally covers:
- The originality and significance of the research
- Methodological rigor and clarity
- Accuracy and relevance of data analysis
- Interpretation of results and validity of conclusions
- Quality of writing and organization
- Ethical considerations, where applicable
Reviewers are encouraged to offer specific suggestions for improvement and to provide clear recommendations, which may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
Editorial Decision
Upon receiving the reviewers’ reports, the handling editor evaluates the feedback and makes a recommendation. The final decision rests with the editor-in-chief or a designated senior editor. In cases where reviewer opinions differ substantially, additional reviewers may be consulted.
Authors are informed of the decision along with anonymized reviewer comments. The journal aims to communicate decisions in a timely manner while ensuring thorough evaluation.
Revision Stage
If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewer comments carefully and to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response outlining the changes made. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly in cases of major revision.
Final Acceptance and Production
Once a manuscript is accepted, it enters the production stage, which includes copyediting, proofreading, and formatting. Authors are allowed to review proofs and correct minor errors before publication.
Ethical Standards and Confidentiality
All participants in the peer review process, authors, reviewers, and editors, are expected to adhere to high ethical standards. Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents, and their contents must not be shared or used for personal advantage before publication.
The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication, or other forms of academic misconduct. Suspected cases are handled in accordance with established ethical guidelines and may result in rejection or retraction.
Transparency and Continuous Improvement
The National Journal of Neurology periodically reviews its peer review procedures to ensure fairness, efficiency, and transparency. Feedback from authors and reviewers is welcomed as part of this ongoing process.
