Editor Guidelines

Essential guidelines for JNRT editors handling neurology and neuroscience manuscript evaluation.

Editors are responsible for fair and efficient evaluation of submitted neurology and neuroscience manuscripts. Key responsibilities include assessing manuscript suitability for the journal, selecting appropriate peer reviewers with neurological expertise, synthesizing reviewer feedback into actionable decisions, and communicating clearly with authors throughout the review process.

• Assess each neurology submission for scope, quality, and potential contribution to the field
• Identify and invite qualified peer reviewers with relevant neurological expertise
• Evaluate reviewer comments and make balanced editorial decisions
• Provide constructive guidance to authors in revision requests
• Ensure timely processing of manuscripts through the editorial workflow
• Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and author information

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist. Conflicts include manuscripts from close collaborators, students, or colleagues at the same institution, as well as competing research interests or financial relationships. When conflicts arise, editors should transfer neurology manuscripts to alternative handlers promptly.

Editorial decisions should be based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to neurological sciences. Decisions must be fair, unbiased, and consistent with journal policies. Editors should provide clear rationale for decisions, especially when rejecting manuscripts, to help authors improve their neurology work for future submissions.

Editors must be vigilant for ethical issues including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, and authorship disputes. Suspected misconduct should be reported to the editorial office for investigation. Editors ensure that neurological research involving human subjects or animals includes appropriate ethics approvals.

Editors should maintain professional and respectful communication with authors, reviewers, and editorial staff. Response times should be reasonable, and authors should receive regular updates on manuscript status. Constructive feedback helps authors improve their neurology research.