Peer Review

Peer review process

The selection and evaluation of scientific content is peer-reviewed, the review process is double-blind (experts are anonymous to the authors and vice versa). The evaluation is carried out by at least two experts, at least one of whom is not a member of the editorial team.
The Journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Newly submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the Editors who ensure that the manuscript meets the editorial standards of the journal.
Manuscripts that are not rejected at this stage are sent to two or more external peer review experts in the appropriate fields. The Journal requires prospective reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. Furthermore, reviewers should refer to COPE’s specific guidance: What to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
Revised articles are usually sent for re-review. Revision of an article gives no guarantee of acceptance and revised articles may be rejected if the improvements are not sufficient or new issues arise. However, authors are encouraged to cooperate as much as possible in addressing or answering the concerns of the reviewers.
The editor in charge of the manuscript is ultimately responsible for the rejection or acceptance decision.
The whole process is handled within the Open Journal System framework, which guarantees timely processing and traceability.

Claims & Appeals

Should the reviewing process result in the rejection of the manuscript, the authors may trigger an arbitration. The handling Editor will consider again the whole evaluation history, and involve the reviewers in a discussion aimed at resolving the claim; recommendations from additional referee(s) may also be sought for. In the event rejection of the manuscript should be recommended again, this decision is final.

Options for post-publication discussions

Post-publication critiques provide a mechanism for readers to raise concerns or seek clarification about published content.
When formally submitted for journal publication, critiques that are found to be constructive and useful to the community can be published in the form of a Comment.
Readers willing to submit a critique should send their request by e-mail to contact@emerging-neurologist.org
Critiques should be reasonable and may not contain any defamatory or offensive content. They should be accompanied by data justifying the claims.
During the editorial handling process of critiques, the journal invites the original authors of the critiqued article to write a response, which can be published in the form of a Reply.
Both critique and response may be peer reviewed and revised, and, if accepted and published, are indexed by bibliographic databases.