Editorial Message

In January 2023, the Neurosciences Journal will complete 28 years of continuous publication. Since 1996, the journal has embarked on a long, endless journey and has taken on this weighty expedition. We are struggling to achieve global, regional, and local dominance. The length of time required for peer review and revisions is a major concern for the authors. The revision and peer-review processes have been the subject of numerous inquiries. In this editorial, we will provide a brief explanation of the publication journey, and then shed light on last year’s achievements and statistics.

For many authors, publishing their research in a peer-reviewed journal is difficult, and they find this lengthy and difficult process frustrating. The author begins the journey by writing his manuscript and using the online journal system to submit a complete manuscript to the journal. We check the paper’s structure and arrangement against the journal’s instructions to ensure required sections are included. Then, the editor evaluates the manuscript and performs the initial screening. If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it will be sent to a poll of reviewers for revision.

Once the peer review process and the reviewers’ comments are complete, the editor will decide whether or not to publish the manuscript. If the manuscript is not accepted for publication, it will be sent back to the author for revision. If the author fails to modify his manuscript according to the revision instructions, the manuscript will be rejected and not published. However, if the author completes the revisions as instructed, the editorial office will do a quick and fast review with the editor and reviewers to assess the updated version. The manuscript version will be accepted for publication in the next issue, after undergoing all necessary revisions.

Peer review is defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.¹ This helps to maintain quality standards, improve performance and provide credibility. Additionally, it assists the publisher, editor-in-chief, and editorial office in determining whether a manuscript should be published in the journal, accepted with revisions, or rejected. To avoid criticisms for delays in publishing and perceptions of bias against the editors and/or reviewers, editors carefully read and examine the manuscript during the review process. This is to check whether the science behind the study is true, how well designed the study is, and the appropriateness of the method used. However, the Neurosciences Journal also offers an independent review for every manuscript, and we give authors the chance to improve on their work.

The peer review process is conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review.² In an open review, both the author and the reviewer know each other’s identity. In a single-blind review, the reviewers’ identity remains anonymous; however, the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewers. In a double-blind review, both the reviewers and the authors are anonymous. To prevent bias from the reviewers, the Neuroscience Journal is double blinded. This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content rather than on the author’s reputation. In addition to the three kinds of peer reviews, publications may undergo post-publication reviews. For published articles, we encourage correspondence with the author; we also send the comments to the corresponding author and publish his/her reply.

Statistics

In 2022, our average rejection rate was 38%. Papers outside the journal’s scope, papers of low scientific quality that do not meet the journal’s requirements, authors’ failure to submit necessary revisions and other requirements, and duplicate publications were among the reasons for rejection (Figure 1). We published four issues in 2022, and a total of 41 articles, which included 25 originals, 1 editorial, 2 reviews, 6 case reports, one case series, 1 clinical image, one clinical note, one brief communication, one correspondence, and 2 systematic reviews. The average processing time was 3.3 months from receipt to acceptance, 1.8 months from acceptance to publication, and 5.1 months from receipt to publication. However, the implementation of online continuous publications will significantly shorten the publication process. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and China contributed 63%, 10%, and 12.5% of the published articles, respectively, and Pakistan, Bahrain, Qatar, Austria, and Serbia contributed the remaining articles.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

- Type of manuscripts received for the year 2022.

Our thanks also go to the following reviewers, who have participated in the excellent review of manuscripts and books for the year 2022.

Aboonq, Moutasem

Abualsaud, Dalya

Abulaban, Ahmad*

Aktas, Gulali

Al-Baradie, Raidah*

Al-Suwaidan, Faisal*

Alattas, Alawi

Alblowi, Mohammed

Alhammad, Othman*

Almandil, Noor B.

Alotaibi, Faisal*

Alrawaili, Saud

Alshahri, Saeed

Altamura, Claudia

Arevalo, Miguel

Baledent, Olivier

Barik, Ramachandra*

Barnawi, Abdulwahed*

Bertolini, Gladson Ricardo Flor

Besag, Frank M. C.*

Bhat, Mohd Akbar

Brigola, Allan Gustavo

Ceccarelli, Antonia

Chen, Qing

Chopra, Sunil

Chopra, Sunil

Cilliler, Asli Ece

Constantinescu, C. S.

D’Amico, Emanuele

Das, Undurti N.

Dayoub, Nawal

Elia, Maurizio*

Erken, Ertugrul

Gao, Bulang

Gasparyan, Armen Yuri

Grill, Jacques*

Haunschild, Robin

Hayashi, Yasuhiko

Hiramatsu, Masafumi

Isik, Kubra

Islam, Md Rabiul

Junior, Edward Araujo

Kadooka, Keisuke

Kashoo, Faizan Zaffar*

Khatri, Ismail*

Kirik, Serkan

Kolev, Vasil

Korinthenberg, Rudolf

Lamba, Manika

Long, Idris

Mahesh, PKB

Marar, Sumayyia D.

Martucci, Gennaro

Masri, Amira

Mastronuzzi, Angela

Matsuzono, Kosuke

Mazicioglu, Mumtaz M.

Mizutani, Katsuhiro

Moccia, Marcello

Nakhostin Ansari, Noureddin

Negro, A.

Nelson, Mary Elizabeth S.

Noh, Mohamad Syafeeq Faeez

Obeidat, Ahmed Z.

Pant, Devesh

Pellesi, Lanfranco

Rai, Sachchida Nand*

Riker, Richard R.

Roldan-Valadez, Ernesto

Rusu, Mugurel Constantin

Saeedi, Jameela*

Sami, Waqas

Schernthaner, Gerit-Holger

Simpson, Steve*

Soliman, Mohamed AR

Soman, Salil

Tabarki, Brahim*

Taly, Arun B.

Tamam, Lut

Toda, Hiroki

Tomasi, S. Ottavio

Tomaszewski, Christian

Triunfo, Stefania

Tsivgoulis, Georgios

Tucker, Alexander M.

Tufan, Ali Evren

Verma, Rajesh

Weiss, Margaret Danielle

Yu, Jinlu

Zardasti, Libriati

Zhang, Hong-Liang*