(upbeat music) – [Instructor] Hi, this
is Marina Picciotto. I’m the Editor-in-Chief of
The Journal of Neuroscience. This is a video about
the editorial process that your manuscripts go through. The Journal of Neuroscience
submission website is freely accessible to authors, but the review process is only seen by editorial board members. To demystify the review process this video will describe each facet of the review and editorial process and
illustrate the interface that editors use when handling
each submitted manuscript. On the research support
submission page you can see all of the manuscript types
published in the journal. Before uploading a full submission, an author can upload
their abstract through the pre-submission inquiry link without paying a submission fee. The abstract will then
go to a senior editor who will either make a
decision on their own or consult with a reviewing editor about whether the paper is
likely to be sent out for review. If so, the senior editor
will let the authors know and they can proceed to the
full submission process. Lastly, journal club and
symposium manuscripts must be solicited by the editors. When the corresponding
author submits the manuscript using our online system, all the authors receive an email
confirming the submission. The paper then passes
through two initial steps. It’s assigned to an
appropriate senior editor who is responsible for the overall handling of the manuscript. In parallel, the central office determines whether the manuscript meets all of the submission and
formatting requirements. The senior editor looks
over the manuscript and then assigns it to
the most appropriate reviewing editor who will
select potential reviewers. In many journals the reviewing editor would be called the handling editor. The reviewing editor is selected based primarily on areas of expertise, but we also take into account
the author’s preference, any conflicts of interest, and
the workload of each editor. In a minority of cases
an editor may question whether the paper is appropriate for the Journal of Neuroscience. If there are reservations
about the suitability of the study for the journal, the senior or the
reviewing editor will open a consultation session with
two or more additional editors each of whom evaluates the manuscript and then provides comments
to the consultation session. If there is a consensus that this paper is not suitable for the
Journal of Neuroscience, then the manuscript is rejected
without external review. The reasons for rejection are spelled out by the senior editor
in the decision letter. For example, a clinical case report, a paper that fails to provide insight into a neuro-biological
mechanism, or a paper that the editors believe provides
relatively incremental addition to the literature would likely be rejected without external review. In contrast, if there’s not a consensus among the editors, then the paper is sent out to external reviewers. The reviewing editor then
examines the manuscript and identifies potential reviewers using several search strategies. These include public databases
of the scientific literature as well as the manuscript bibliography. We also consult our internal database which tracks the
timeliness and the ratings of prior reviews for
each potential reviewer. Reviewers suggested by the
authors are considered, but are not always selected. It’s essential that
reviewers meet the criteria for not having a conflict of interest, and that can be defined in several ways. The conflict of interest
policy for both authors and reviewers can be
found in the instructions for authors on this Journal
of Neuroscience website. To expedite the review
process for authors, we typically invite more reviewers than the two that are required. Thus, a willing reviewer may not be needed. If a reviewer’s unable
to evaluate a manuscript, we’re grateful for a rapid notification so we can move on and
find another reviewer. We’re also grateful for suggestions for alternative reviewers
who may have good knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript. A reviewer should recuse
themselves from review if they have a current collaboration or any other conflict that
can preclude unbiased review. The reviewers are asked to
return feedback within 14 days. Editors try to expedite
the completion of reviews while recognizing that
reviewing is voluntary and that reviewers have many competing demands on their time. That said, we try to get
a decision back to authors within 30 days of submission
of their manuscript, and we can’t do that until
the reviews are completed. Each reviewer assigns separate ratings for the significance and technical, or methodological,
strengths of the manuscript. Both ratings are important
in the overall review of the paper and are taken
into account by the editors. When reviews are complete,
the reviewing editor reads through each review
and forms an opinion about the strengths and
weaknesses of the manuscript. Well-justified reviewer
comments are especially helpful to both the editors and the authors. In cases where the reviewers disagree on the importance of the work, the reviewing editor can choose to open a consultation session with the reviewers in a blinded fashion. If the reviews of the
reviewers are highly divergent, or if there isn’t a consensus
after a consultation, and the editors don’t feel
qualified to discriminate between them, a third external
reviewer may be appropriate. However, the expertise of the
reviewing or senior editor will often be sufficient
to make a final decision. The options for recommendation by the reviewing editor
are to accept it as is, to revise with review
just by the senior editor, revise with review by both the senior editor and
the reviewing editor, revise and re-review
by external reviewers, reject with no option to resubmit, and to reject with no option to resubmit but with a recommendation
for consideration by eNeuro. At the end of this process, the reviewing editor writes
a short justification for the recommendation
to the senior editor and has the option of
writing additional comments directed to the author. Upon receiving the recommendation
from the reviewing editor, the senior editor examines the manuscript, reads the reviews, and considers the reviewing editor’s comments. If the senior editor’s judgment is in line with that of the reviewing editor, which is the most common outcome, the senior editor makes the decision and sends the letter to the authors. In some cases, a senior editor may open a consultation session with the reviewing editor to discuss the decision in more detail. Once a decision is
reached, the senior editor composes the letter to the authors which may highlight specific reasons for a rejection or comments
that would be most critical to address if authors
prepare a revised manuscript. For those manuscripts that are rejected from the Journal of Neuroscience,
there are two procedures that may expedite publication elsewhere. First, some manuscripts may be appropriate for consideration by eNeuro. Some decision letters
will make the suggestion. In addition, the Journal of Neuroscience is part of the Neuroscience
Peer Review Consortium, which allows reviews to be sent directly from the journal to
another consortium journal at the author’s requests. In some cases, the
authors may feel strongly that the decision to reject the manuscript is based on significant reviewer error. In such cases, the corresponding author may file an appeal of the decision. When an appeal is filed, the senior and reviewing editors consult,
going over the manuscript, the external reviews, and
the rationale for the appeal. The primary reason to file an appeal is serious scientific error
on the part of the reviewer. If an appeal is granted,
the paper may be sent immediately to one or
more additional reviewers or the author may be allowed to submit a fully revised manuscript. In preparing a resubmission, authors should provide a detailed
summary of the changes to the manuscript that address each of the reviewers’ concerns. It’s likely the revised
manuscript could be sent back to entirely new reviewers
for additional evaluation. Note that if you prepare a
manuscript that contains any data that was previously
submitted, you should contact the previous senior editor before submitting as a new manuscript. A new feature is that
the accepted manuscript is published online within days. Accepted manuscripts are
copyedited and proofs are sent to the corresponding
author within two weeks. The authors correct and return
the proofs within 24 hours. Authors are encouraged to
refer to these resources before submission or
revision of a manuscript. All the instructions
for the review process are available online through the Journal of Neuroscience
submission website. Thank you for listening
and please let us know if you have any questions or suggestions. For specific questions
about the submission process or the review process, please send us an email at [email protected] (upbeat music)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *