As of October 18, 2019, all manuscripts are now submitted through the Research Exchange (REX) Submission Portal. For submissions started prior to October 18, 2019, including revised submissions or invited submissions, please visit ScholarOne to manage your submission. If you have any questions about the submission portals, please email [email protected] or [email protected]. Editorial Process Overview Journal Aim and Scope The Journal of Neuroscience Research (JNR) publishes novel research results that will advance our understanding of the development, function and pathophysiology of the nervous system, using molecular, cellular, systems, and translational approaches. The journal focuses on uncovering the intricacies of brain structure and function. Research published in JNR covers all species from invertebrates to humans, and the reports inform the readers about the function and organization of the nervous system, with emphasis on how disease modifies the function and organization. The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research, and its significance to the journal’s readership. Except where otherwise stated, manuscripts are single-blind peer reviewed. Papers will only be sent to review if the Editor-in-Chief determines that the paper meets the appropriate quality and relevance requirements. The Journal does not consider Case Reports or studies using herbal remedies/natural compounds derived from plants as these are difficult to reproduce. In addition, studies involving immortalized cell lines that are not accompanied by primary cultures, slice or in vivo work will not be considered as it is difficult or impossible to extrapolate results to normal neuronal populations. Peer Review Peer review by two to three external reviewers will be made after editorial prescreening. Submitted manuscripts are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief for prescreening, and then distributed among the Handling Editors (either Executive Editors or Associate Editors) based on expertise. All submissions to JNR are subject to stringent evaluation first by the Editor-in-Chief. Submissions are assessed to ensure they fall within the scope of the journal and meet its requirements for transparency, scientific rigor and novelty. If deemed suitable for peer review, the Handling Editor will send the manuscript to external reviewers with expertise in the topic and methods. This manuscript triage is essential to avoid undue burden on the peer review system. Referee exclusions by the authors will be honored as long as the total number of excluded referees are reasonable (i.e., total number of exclusions reflecting the size of expert pool for a given topic). Referee suggestions from the authors may be considered. JNR operates using a transparent review process. We make peer review documentation (referees' de-anonymized reports, authors' responses and editors' comments) available alongside the published articles. Unblinding will occur only after a manuscript is accepted for publication; reviews will remain anonymous until this point (reviewers' names will not be disclosed for manuscripts that are ultimately rejected). We believe that this will result in a more transparent and accountable process. To highlight the skill and importance of reviewing, Wiley has partnered with Publons to give reviewers formal recognition for their contribution. In this partnership, reviewers can elect to have their transparent reviews automatically added to their reviewer profile on Publons. This is an optional service to reviewers. Click here for additional details. Peer reviewers are selected for their technical expertise and overview of their specific fields of research interest. If you wish to recruit a colleague to review with you for reasons of mentorship or complementary technical knowledge, please contact the editor before sharing access to the manuscript. Undeclared co-reviewing is incompatible with transparent peer review and prevents us from giving credit to your colleague’s important contribution to open research. Appeals Authors may appeal the journal’s rejection decisions. While there is no limit to the number of appeals, the Journal editors will do their utmost to minimize the submitted paper being re-reviewed multiple times unless substantive changes are made to the submitted manuscripts. Because the reviewer’s time and effort cannot be taken for granted and editorial resources are finite, the Journal will deny appeals on post-review rejection without formal re-review unless the editors view the revision to be convincing and substantive. 1 Manuscript Categories Original Research Research articles are full-length reports of quality current research within any area covered by the journal. Such contributions report new research findings or conceptual analyses that make a significant contribution to the scientific knowledge. There are no strict word or figure limits on this type of article. Authors should present the material clearly and completely, in the most concise and direct form possible. The introduction should be brief, and the discussion should be restricted to issues directly relevant to the results. The authors should provide sufficiently detailed information in the Materials and Methods section for the observations to be critically evaluated and, if necessary, repeated. Original research articles will be peer reviewed and every attempt will be made to bring the acceptable research article to a rapid publication. Editors will evaluate the submission and compare against the existing literature to determine what was shown before and what does the new submission add. Technical Report While JNR does not publish papers of a purely technical or methodological nature (so-called “methods papers”), certain research articles may include, as a major component of the work, a novel technological development not previously reported, and presented as a crucial part of the methods and results. Such papers will follow the usual layout of a standard research paper (see above) with an extended Materials and Methods that provides all of the necessary details of the novel technology, including description of algorithms and validation experiments, to make it accessible to the readership. Such papers will be marked as Technical Report papers to reflect their particular contents. Note that simple improvements on established methodologies do not befit this format. Registered Reports Registered Reports are designed to eliminate publication bias and incentivize best scientific practice. Registered Reports are a form of empirical article in which the methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered and reviewed prior to research being conducted. This format is designed to minimize bias, while also allowing complete flexibility to conduct exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings. The cornerstone of the Registered Reports format is that authors submit as a Stage 1 manuscript an introduction, complete and transparent methods and the results of any pilot experiments (where applicable) that motivate the research proposal, written in the future tense. These proposals will include a description of the key research question and background literature, hypotheses, experimental design and procedures, analysis pipeline, a statistical power analysis and full description of planned comparisons. Submissions, which are reviewed by editors, peer reviewers, and our statistical editor, meeting the rigorous and transparent requirements for conducting the research proposed, are offered an in-principle acceptance, meaning that the journal guarantees publication if the authors conduct the experiment in accordance with their approved protocol. Following data collection, authors prepare and resubmit a Stage 2 manuscript that includes the introduction and methods from the original submission plus their obtained results and discussion. The manuscript will undergo full review; referees will consider whether the data test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions, will ensure authors adhered precisely to the registered experimental procedures, and will review any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors to confirm they are justified, methodologically sound and informative. At this stage, authors must also share their data (see also Wiley’s Data Sharing and Citation Policy) and analysis scripts on a public and freely accessible archive. Additional details, including template reviewer and author guidelines can be found by clicking the link to the Open Science Framework from the Center for Open Science (see also Chambers et al. 2014) or in our Registered Reports Author Guidelines. Review and Mini-Review JNR publishes two types of Review articles: full-length reviews and mini-reviews. Focused, critical reviews of a wide range of forefront areas of neuroscience will be considered for publication. The preferred format for Reviews is that of a focused, topical paper that helps specialists remain up to date with the information published in their subject while being informative for the non-specialist. As such, reviews should focus on recent developments in a given field, describe current trends and as applicable methodologies, and provide a critical opinion intended for broad readership. Authors of reviews should avoid concentrating solely or preferentially on their own work. There are no limits to the number of pages or figures for a review, but mini-reviews must be less than 5,000 words and