Editors receive tools and guidance to evaluate negative results with rigor and fairness. Resources support consistent decisions, transparent reporting, and constructive author feedback.

• Editorial checklists for negative results reporting
• Reviewer assignment guidance based on expertise
• Templates for decision letters and revision requests
• Ethics and conflict of interest policy summaries
• Encourage consistent decision letters and clear revision guidance.
• Use standardized scoring rubrics for methodological quality.
• Ensure reviewer expertise matches the manuscript topic.
• Confirm ethical approvals and consent documentation.
• Monitor turnaround times and communicate delays promptly.
• Promote data transparency and reproducibility statements.
• Document conflicts of interest and recuse when needed.
• Coordinate with guest editors to align on scope fit.
• Verify trial registration details when applicable.
• Ensure statistical review for complex models or trials.
• Encourage transparent reporting of null or negative outcomes.
• Verify data availability statements and repository links.
• Ensure reviewers comment on methodological rigor and power.
• Request clarification on protocol deviations when needed.
• Promote consistent use of reporting checklists across submissions.
• Confirm conflicts of interest disclosures for all authors.
• Encourage neutral interpretation of null results in conclusions.
• Provide guidance on limitations and future research directions.
• Track decision timelines to maintain author expectations.
• Encourage editors to request power calculations when null findings are central.
• Ensure adherence to journal scope and negative results relevance.
• Promote data availability checks before acceptance.
• Verify conflict of interest disclosures are complete and consistent.
• Ask reviewers to assess whether null conclusions are justified.
• Encourage transparency about protocol deviations in decision letters.
• Ensure adherence to reporting checklists and flow diagrams.
• Monitor reviewer performance for constructive, unbiased feedback.
• Confirm data access links are functional before publication.
• Highlight reproducibility resources in editor communications.
• Encourage editors to verify that null results are described in the abstract.

The editorial office provides orientation sessions and ongoing support for new editors.

IJNR is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing of negative, null, and inconclusive results. We emphasize reproducible methods, full outcome reporting, and ethical compliance across all article types.

The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].

We encourage complete reporting, data availability, and candid discussion of limitations to strengthen the research record.