Reviewer GuidelinesInternational Journal of Neuroinformatics
Reviewers help ensure the quality and credibility of neuroinformatics research. These guidelines outline expectations for fair, thorough, and respectful reviews.
Review Responsibilities
Reviewers assess methodological quality, neuroinformatics relevance, and clarity of reporting. Reviews should be evidence based and focused on improving the manuscript.
Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses. Provide specific, actionable feedback and avoid personal or biased comments. Maintain confidentiality and do not share manuscripts or data.
Reviewer Checklist
- Assess study design and validity
- Check ethics and consent statements
- Evaluate data transparency
- Review statistical methods
- Comment on neuroinformatics impact
- Provide clear recommendations
Structure of a Strong Review
Summary
Provide a brief summary of the study and its main contribution to neuroinformatics.
Major Issues
Identify critical concerns about study design, data integrity, or interpretation.
Minor Issues
Note smaller edits related to clarity, formatting, or referencing.
Recommendation
Provide a clear recommendation with rationale for accept, revise, or reject.
Ethics Notes
Flag missing consent, approvals, or privacy protections if identified.
Impact Statement
Comment on the neuroinformatics significance and potential applications.
Ethics and Confidentiality
Peer review must be objective, confidential, and free from conflicts of interest.
Decline reviews when conflicts exist due to relationships or competing interests.
Do not share or use manuscript content outside the review process.
Evaluate manuscripts fairly without bias related to geography or institution.
Report suspected plagiarism or data concerns to the editor.
Professional Conduct
Reviews should be respectful and professional. Focus critiques on the work rather than the authors and avoid language that could be interpreted as personal or dismissive.
If you identify potential ethical issues, include them in confidential comments to the editor. Notify the editor promptly if you cannot complete a review on time.
Timelines and Communication
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can meet the requested deadline. If additional time is needed, communicate promptly with the editor.
Typical review timelines are two to three weeks, depending on manuscript complexity. Timely feedback supports authors and accelerates scientific impact.
Provide a brief summary of strengths for balance clearly. This helps authors prioritize revisions.
Clear, respectful comments help authors improve their work and support consistent editorial decisions.
Become a Reviewer
Contribute to high quality neuroinformatics research by joining the reviewer community.
Reviewer Register Contact the Editorial OfficeEmail: [email protected] | Response within 24 business hours | Reviewer support available
