NeuScience uses double-anonymous peer review: author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during assessment, while authorised editors can identify both. Prepare separate identifying files and an anonymised review manuscript. Recognition through a preprint, specialist topic or dataset can still occur; participants must disclose relevant conflicts even when identities are formally concealed.
Editorial selection criteria
Editors consider fit with the health-focused scope, originality, importance of the question, methodological validity, ethical compliance, reporting completeness and whether conclusions follow from the evidence. NeuScience does not promise acceptance on technical soundness alone or require every contribution to be a breakthrough across all science. A rigorous replication, negative result or methods contribution can be relevant when its contribution is clear.
Incomplete submissions may be returned for correction. Manuscripts may be declined without external review for scope mismatch, insufficient contribution, fundamental design problems, unsupported claims or unresolved ethical concerns. Administrative completion does not guarantee review. The journal has no validated external-review or acceptance percentages before launch; see journal metrics.
Reviewer selection and invitations
Editors choose reviewers for relevant expertise, independence and availability. They may consider reviewing interests, manuscript topics, author suggestions and opposition, and local workload information. Author suggestions are optional input to selection, not appointments. Editors may verify identity and seek reviewers outside the existing account list.
Invitations explain the task, relevant deadlines and access arrangements. Reviewers should assess expertise and conflicts before accepting, and decline promptly when unavailable. The full review must use only the files authorised for that assignment. NeuScience does not claim an abstract-only invitation access restriction beyond the permissions actually provided by the platform. An invitation or secure response link must not be shared with another person.
Independent assessment
Research manuscripts proceeding to external review normally require at least two completed independent expert reports before acceptance. Additional methodological or statistical advice may be requested. Editors assess the quality and relevance of the reports; reviewer votes alone do not determine the decision. Commissioning an article does not exempt research claims from suitable assessment.
Reviewers address the question, methods, evidence, reporting, ethics, limitations and data or code access. They should distinguish essential changes from optional suggestions and explain recommendations. Review content intended for authors is shared through the decision process; confidential comments intended for editors are not author-facing reports. Reviewers are not entitled to other reviewers' identities or confidential material.
Confidentiality and conflicts
Do not circulate unpublished files, use them for personal advantage or contact authors directly about an active review. Ask permission before involving a colleague and identify their contribution to the editor. Do not upload confidential content to external AI tools without appropriate authorisation. Inform the editor of suspected ethical issues without making unsupported accusations in the author report.
Editors with a relevant conflict must recuse themselves. Editor-authored manuscripts require independent handling. Authors, editors and reviewers must comply with the competing-interests policy.
Decisions and revisions
Possible outcomes include decline, a request for revision or acceptance. The decision explains the main reasons and provides shareable reports where applicable. Editors may reconcile contradictory requests and identify which changes are essential. Acceptance is not guaranteed by an invitation to revise.
The decision letter specifies the revision due date. Submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point response, identifying where changes appear. Explain respectfully when a requested change is inappropriate or impossible. Revised work may return to the same reviewers or additional experts. A new review round must evaluate the current files and response rather than relying only on an earlier version.
Timing, reminders and author communication
Invitation and report deadlines are specified for each assignment. Reviewers who need additional time should contact the editor. Authors should request extensions before revision deadlines and use the manuscript record for substantive correspondence. Reminder settings and internal aims do not establish measured journal performance or a guaranteed decision date.
NeuScience has no established median decision or production times before launch. No fixed 21-day turnaround is guaranteed. Cases requiring specialist advice, additional reviewers or integrity assessment may take longer. Journal metrics explains what will be reported once valid operational data exist.
Acceptance, production and publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, versioned author proofs, query resolution, rights information and publication checks. Proof generation does not itself publish an article. Authors must check the current proof and disclose consequential errors. Any substantive new analysis may require editorial reassessment.
An APC or waiver must not affect scientific assessment. Reviewer identities and confidential correspondence are not publishable supplementary material. Identifiers and publication metadata are confirmed during production; acceptance alone is not evidence that a DOI deposit has succeeded.
Appeals and concerns
A reasoned decision appeal must normally be submitted within 28 calendar days. Concerns about confidentiality, conflicts or published reliability can be raised separately. The assessor must be unconflicted. See corrections, complaints and appeals and research integrity.