Editors GuidelinesInternational Journal of Neuroinformatics
Editors safeguard scientific quality and ensure fair, timely decisions. These guidelines outline expectations for editorial oversight in IJNN.
Core Responsibilities
Editors evaluate scope fit, methodological quality, and ethical compliance before assigning peer review. Decisions should prioritize scientific rigor, transparency, and neuroinformatics relevance.
Editors manage reviewer selection, interpret reviewer feedback, and provide clear decision rationale to authors. All decisions must remain independent of funding sources or institutional relationships.
Editor Checklist
- Confirm scope and relevance
- Check ethics and consent statements
- Select qualified reviewers
- Assess reviewer quality
- Provide fair decision rationale
- Maintain confidentiality
Editorial Standards
Editorial oversight must align with journal ethics policies and ensure unbiased, transparent evaluation of all submissions.
Reject manuscripts that fall outside the journal's neuroinformatics focus.
Verify ethics approvals, consent statements, and data privacy protections.
Base decisions on scientific merit, not author status or affiliation.
Protect reviewer identities and manuscript details throughout review.
Reviewer Selection and Guidance
Choose reviewers with relevant subject expertise and no conflicts of interest. Avoid reviewers from the same institution as the authors or with recent collaborations.
Provide clear review expectations and encourage constructive, evidence based feedback. If reviews are low quality or biased, seek additional input.
Appeals and Ethical Concerns
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a clear rationale. Editors should review appeals objectively and seek additional input when needed.
Potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or inappropriate authorship must be escalated to the editorial office for investigation.
Document appeal outcomes clearly.
Decision Quality and Consistency
Document decision rationale and ensure that reviewer comments align with journal standards. Consistent decisions strengthen author trust and improve the journal's reputation.
When reviewer recommendations conflict, editors can request additional reviews or provide a balanced synthesis in the decision letter.
Workflow and Timelines
Editors should provide timely decisions and communicate clearly with the editorial office. If reviewer delays occur, editors may invite additional reviewers or recommend desk decisions.
When possible, aim to complete initial review assignments within one week and reach decisions within two to three weeks, depending on reviewer availability.
Use templates when possible to standardize decisions and improve clarity.
Join the Editorial Team
Interested in serving as an editor? Register your interest or contact the editorial office.
Editor Register Contact the Editorial OfficeEmail: [email protected] | Response within 24 business hours | Editorial support available
