Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for contributing your expertise to the peer review process at NeuScience. Quality peer review is essential to maintaining scientific standards and helping authors improve their work.

Role of the Reviewer

As a reviewer, you serve as a trusted expert advisor to our editors. Your role is to:

Evaluate the scientific validity and significance of the research
Identify strengths and weaknesses objectively
Provide constructive feedback to help improve the manuscript
Advise the editor on the manuscript's suitability for publication
Maintain confidentiality and ethical standards

Before Accepting a Review

Please consider whether you can provide a fair and timely review:

Accept if:

[OK] The topic falls within your area of expertise
[OK] You can complete the review within 21 days
[OK] You have no conflicts of interest
[OK] You can provide objective, constructive feedback

Decline if:

❌ The topic is outside your expertise
❌ You have a conflict of interest (personal, financial, institutional)
❌ You cannot meet the deadline
❌ You have recently reviewed the manuscript for another journal
❌ You recognize the author(s) and cannot be objective

[!]️ Conflicts of Interest

Please decline and inform the editor if you:

Have collaborated with any author in the past 3 years
Have a close personal relationship with an author
Work at the same institution as an author
Have financial interests related to the research
Have competitive or adversarial relationships with authors

How to Review

Step 1: First Read

Read the manuscript once for overall impression:

Is the research question clear and important?
Are the methods appropriate?
Do the results support the conclusions?
Is the paper well-organized and clearly written?

Step 2: Detailed Assessment

Evaluate each section systematically:

Section	Key Questions
Title/Abstract	Accurate? Informative? Reflects content?
Introduction	Clear background? Knowledge gap identified? Objectives stated?
Methods	Reproducible? Appropriate for objectives? Statistics valid?
Results	Complete? Clearly presented? Supported by data? Figures/tables clear?
Discussion	Properly interpreted? Limitations acknowledged? Context provided?
Conclusions	Supported by results? Overstated or appropriate?
References	Adequate? Current? Properly cited?

Step 3: Write Your Review

Structure your review clearly:

                Review Structure
                Summary (2-3 sentences): Brief description of the paper's main contribution
Major Comments: Significant issues that must be addressed (numbered list)
Minor Comments: Smaller improvements, typos, clarifications (numbered list)
Confidential Comments to Editor: Any concerns not suitable for authors
Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

            

Writing Constructive Feedback

Do:

[OK] Be specific – cite page/line numbers
[OK] Explain why something is a problem
[OK] Suggest solutions where possible
[OK] Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses
[OK] Be respectful and professional in tone
[OK] Separate major from minor issues

Don't:

❌ Make personal comments about authors
❌ Be vague ("needs improvement")
❌ Demand unnecessary additional experiments
❌ Request excessive self-citations
❌ Use harsh or dismissive language
❌ Share manuscript content with anyone

❌ Poor Feedback

"The methods are weak."

"I'm not convinced."

"This is not novel."

[OK] Good Feedback

"The sample size (n=15) may be insufficient to detect the reported effect. Please provide a power analysis or discuss this limitation."

"The claim in line 245 that X causes Y is not fully supported by Figure 3. Additional controls would strengthen this conclusion."

Ethical Responsibilities

Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts as confidential; do not share, discuss, or retain copies
Integrity: Do not use unpublished data from manuscripts you review
Objectivity: Judge the science, not the author
Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
Disclosure: Report any suspected misconduct to the editor

Contact

Reviewer Support

neuscience@neucitepress.com