Editorial Message

This year marks the 29th year in which the Neurosciences Journal has continuously published articles. With great pride, we acknowledge our contribution to the scientific community because knowledge is one of the most important components to building a knowledge-based society, and we are proud of the contribution we have made to it. Since the inception of the Neuroscience Journal, our editorial team has dedicated its time and energy to producing high-quality content. A brief history of the beginning of science communication will be provided here, as well as statistics from last year’s Neurosciences Journal.

David Bvaster,¹ who founded the British Association for the Advancement of Science, provided guidelines for publishing scientific papers so that scientists know where to begin. Science journalism has been considered a form of science communication.²

Depending on how the information is delivered and received, science communication can be divided into 3 categories: traditional journalism, live events, and online interaction. Magazines, journals, newspapers, television, and radio are considered traditional forms of journalism.³ Traditional journalism reached a large audience and was the fastest mode of delivering information. It also generated high-quality work, and its output influenced public direction and reached policymakers. While one-way reinforcement can be used, once science is reported to the media, scientists no longer control the presentation, leading to more misunderstandings. Currently, this type of information is no longer the primary source of information due to technological advancements. Live or face-to-face events provide more interaction than traditional journalism, but live information can reach only a small group of people. Recent technological advances (websites, blogs, and podcasts) have led to online interaction. Online information reaches a mass audience and allows for immediate direct contact between scientists and the public, making science more accessible and controlled.

The open science movement has received considerable attention in the 21st century in an effort to make scientific research accessible to everyone in society.

In light of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, effective health communication has become more important than ever. The COVID-19 crisis highlighted the importance of scientific communication and prompted the need to assess the quality and validity of research. Today, the development of digital science communication allows for the dissemination of science information, which has increased science’s visibility. The COVID-19 pandemic placed additional pressure on scientists to share their scientific findings as quickly as possible. However, the rapid spread of information can lead to misinformation.⁴

We have observed an unprecedented level of interaction between decision-makers and scientists due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A study to identify ongoing, emerging communication trends between scientists and policymakers in innovation policy and digitalization revealed three main trends: a need for policy and scientific actors to become more institutionalized and engaged; scientists to practice more open, reliable, and accountable science communication with policymakers; and science communication with policymakers to become more digitalized and visualized.⁵ During the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization maintained a dashboard providing updated information on COVID19 using visual forms and graphs.

The journal’s publishers must follow this transformation by adapting to the rapid growth of information and communication technology in a scientific environment. Authors, readers, and journal reviewers possess significantly different knowledge, desires, and expectations than those of the past. Using digital technologies in publishing has made information accessible anywhere at any time. This increase in information availability has also expanded the global capacity to create data and manuscripts.

We are currently developing Neurosciences Journal in accordance with publishing industry innovations and trends. Considering the increasing popularity of social platforms, we encourage sharing audio and video content. We have allowed audio files to be included as supplements in the published articles. In addition to providing the rapid dissemination of new findings, preprint servers allow authors to share their work before submitting it to a journal. However, our journal has neither adopted nor approved of this trend. The use of artificial intelligence provides publishers with a quick, efficient publishing method. The screening of manuscripts, the peer review process, and the typesetting of articles are automated to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the editorial office in producing the issues.

Statistics

As of 2023, we had an average rejection rate of 37% (Figure 1). Various reasons were given for author rejections, including papers outside of the journal’s scope, papers of low scientific quality, papers that did not meet the journal’s requirements, the failure of authors to submit necessary revisions and other requirements, and duplicate publications. The journal published four issues in 2023, with a total of 45 articles, which included 20 original articles, one editorial, 5 reviews, 10 case reports, 2 case series, 4 correspondences, one brief communication, one clinical practice guideline, and one erratum. Approximately 4.4 months are taken on average for submissions to be accepted, 1.3 months are taken on average for acceptance to be published, and 5.7 months are taken on average to publish. Undoubtedly, the implementation of online continuous publications highlights a significant reduction in the publication process. Articles from Saudi Arabia, China, Tunisia, and Austria comprised 79%, 9%, and 6% of the published articles, respectively, while the remaining articles came from Jordan, Kuwait, Korea, India, and Serbia.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

- Type of manuscripts received for the year 2023.

Our thanks also go to the following reviewers, who have participated in the excellent review of manuscripts and books for the year 2023.

A Spina

Abdorreza Naser Moghadasi

Abdulwahed Barnawi

Abhigyan Nath

Ahmad Abulaban

Ajoy Prasad Shetty

Alexandros G. Brotis

Ali Reza Tavasoli

Ali Seifi

Amal Abujaber

Amal Bakhsh

Amit Kumar Chowhan

Antonia Ceccarelli

Ashfaq Shuaib

Barbara Garavaglia

Benedicto Colli

Bitao Bu

Brahim Tabarki

Bulang Gao

Cem Onal

Chandrasekaran Kaliaperumal

Dalya Abualsaud

Eiichiro Nagata

Emma M. Tillman

Eric A. Sribnick

Fahad Bashiri

Faisal Alotaibi*

Faisal Al-Suwaidan*

Feride Ayyildiz

Fernando L. Vale

Filippo Maselli

Francois Dubeau

Friedemann Paul

Gertrudis Perea

Gulali Aktas

Hanan S. M. Farghaly

Helio Teive

Henry L. Paulson

Hiroaki Matsumoto

Hongliang Zhang

Idris Long

Ismail Khatri*

Jameela Saeedi

Jean-Claude Mwanza

Jian Wang

Jithangi Wanigasinghe

Jose Pedro Vieira

Joyce A. Cramer

Katsuhiko Ogawa

Kenar D. Jhaveri

Kosuke Matsuzono

Lanfranco Pellesi

Laniyati Hamijoyo

Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Li He

Mansoureh Togha

Mari Wataya-Kaneda

Mario Peres

Mary Elizabeth S. Nelson

Maryam Khazaee-Pool

Maurizio Elia

Mihaela Adela Vintan

Mohammad Wasay

Mohammed Bangash

Murat Baykara

Nan Jiang

Othman Alhammad

Pasqualino Sirignano

Peter Staats

Piotr Sobolewski

Rafael J. Tamargo

Raidah Al-Baradie*

Rajeev Taliyan

Ramin Saravani

Ravindra Kumar Garg

Rodolfo G. Gatto

Sachchida Nand Rai

Saeed Alshahri

Saeed Bafaraj

Sandeep Sood

Seher Naz Yeni

Serkan Kirik

Stefan Acosta

Subhas Konar

Vibhu Krishnan Viswanathan

Vinil N. Shah

Widjane Sheila Ferreira Goncalves

Xioa-Qiao Dong

Yassir Alasadiy

Yingqi Xing

Yvonne Wren

Zeynab Yassin

*Reviewers who reviewed 3 or more articles for the year 2023