Peer Review Policy
The Nigerian Journal of Neuroscience operates a double-blind (authors and reviewers are blind to each other) peer review process. All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial office for suitability for the journal.
Manuscripts deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. Major revisions are further reconsidered and sent to the same reviewers.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor’s decision although final, still considers the peer-reviewed reports when making such a decision. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the editor may result in the manuscript being rejected.
However, authors are encouraged to re-submit the manuscripts if they can attend to the queries leading to the initial rejection. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves or papers which may lead to any form of conflict of interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups.
At the end of peer review, the Nigerian Journal of Neuroscience appreciates the reviewers by giving them the opportunity to credit their Publons/ORCID profiles with their peer review work.
Peer Review Guidance
Peer reviewers are to treat the review process in confidence and not discuss or disclose the content to any other person. As the journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, reviewers are required to respond promptly within the number of assigned days. If reviewers anticipate a delay, then timely information to the editorial board will help inform the journal, and where necessary, alternative reviewers are sought. Information from reviewers on any article will include:
- Appropriateness of the title of the manuscript;
- Quality of scientific presentation of the manuscript;
- Scientific contribution of the article;
- General comments on the manuscript
Reviewers’ conduct should be objective, with no personal criticism of the author. The reviewers’ views should be expressed clearly with supporting arguments and references. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing. Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome.