At JNDBR, we uphold the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific quality through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Each manuscript is evaluated fairly, confidentially, and with an emphasis on originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the field of neurodegenerative and brain research.

✦ Overview of the Review Model

The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, where:

• Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers
• Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors

This process ensures unbiased evaluation and promotes objective feedback.

✦ Step-by-Step Review Workflow

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors for:

• Scope alignment
• Formatting and language quality
• Basic ethical compliance
• Scientific relevance

Manuscripts failing this stage may be returned without peer review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject matter expertise. In some cases, a third reviewer may be invited for additional perspectives.

3. Review Period

Reviewers are requested to submit their evaluations within 3 weeks. The evaluation includes:

• Scientific validity
• Novelty and significance
• Methodological rigor
• Clarity and structure
• Ethical and reporting standards

Reviewers provide detailed comments for both the authors and the editor, along with a final recommendation.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ input, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required
• Reject

The decision and anonymized reviewer comments are communicated to the corresponding author.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors are invited to revise and resubmit their manuscript in response to reviewer feedback. All revisions must be accompanied by a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer’s comment.

6. Final Evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team. Once approved, the manuscript proceeds to production for publication.

✦ Reviewer Integrity

• All reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest.
• Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and prior reviewing experience.
• The identities of reviewers remain strictly confidential.

✦ Appeals Process

Authors who disagree with a rejection decision may submit a formal appeal letter to the editorial office, stating their case with supporting arguments. Appeals are reviewed independently and carefully, but final decisions remain at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

✦ Commitment to Quality

Our peer review process is designed to:

• Enhance the credibility and reproducibility of published research
• Encourage constructive dialogue between reviewers and authors
• Uphold ethical and scholarly publishing standards

We deeply appreciate the time, expertise, and commitment of our reviewers and editors, who ensure the publication of impactful and high-quality research.

✉️ Contact Us

For questions regarding the peer review process, please contact: editor.jndbr@sciconxjournals.com