A 360º VIEW OF EDITORIAL REVIEW
Warm Welcome from the Editorial Team!
We respect your work and dedication to the Medical Field!
All the best for your successful Publication!
We provide to you an overall idea about the process that will happen after you submit your manuscript. It’s a word from our side that if your manuscript fulfills our requirement, follows our guidelines and protocols, and if it interests and impress us, you will hear from us very soon and the possibilities of your manuscript being published in our esteemed Neurocosm Journal is very high.
After your manuscript being submitted and produced to journal’s editorial analysis wing, it will receive an initial assessment by the journal’s editor or editorial assistant. They will check that it’s broadly suitable for the journal, asking questions such as:
● Does the paper cover a suitable topic in accordance to the journal’s Aims & Scope?
● Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines for the authors? They will check that your paper conforms to the basic requirements of the journal, such as word count, language clarity, and format.
● Has the author included everything that’s needed? They will check that there is an abstract, author affiliation details, any figures, and research-funder information.
If your article doesn’t pass these initial checks the editor might reject the article immediately. This is known as a ‘desk reject’. Otherwise it will move to the next stage, and into peer review.
The editor will then find and contact other researchers who are experts in your field, asking them to review the paper. The reviewers will be asked to read and comment on your article. They may also be invited to advise the editor whether your article is suitable for publication in our journal.
So, what are they looking for? They will be checking for the following points:
● your work is original or new;
● the study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what you’ve done;
● you’ve engaged with all the relevant current scholarship;
● results are appropriately and clearly presented;
● your conclusions are reliable, significant, and supported by the research;
● the paper fits the scope of the journal;
● the work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.
Once the editor has received and considered the reviewer reports, as well as making their own assessment of your work, they will let you know their decision. The reviewer reports will be shared with you along with any additional guidance from the editor.
If you get a straight acceptance, congratulations, your article is ready to move to publication. Very often, you will need to revise your article and resubmit. Please note that the final editorial decision on a paper and the choice of who to invite to review is always at the editor’s discretion. For further details, contact us to clear your queries.
Our editor and reviewers might have suggestions about how you can improve your paper before it is ready to be published. They might have only a few straightforward recommendations (‘minor amendments’) or require more substantial changes before your paper will be accepted for publication (‘major amendments’).
Authors tell us that the reviewers’ comments can be extremely helpful, ensuring that the article is of a high quality. If the editor asks you to revise your article you will then be given time to make the required changes before resubmitting.
When you receive the reviewers’ and the editors’ comments and suggestions, try not to take personal offence from any criticism of your article, even though that can be hard.
Take time to read through the editor and reviewers’ advice carefully, deciding what changes you will make to your article in response. Taking their points on board will ensure your final article is as robust and impactful as possible.
Please make sure that you address all the reviewer and editor comments in your revisions.
We love to know that you’ve considered all of our editors’ and reviewers’ feedback and it may be helpful to resubmit your article along with a two-column grid outlining how you’ve revised your manuscript. On one side of the grid list each of the reviewers’ comments and opposite them detail the alterations you’ve made in response. This processing will allow us to know that you have accepted our suggestions.
If there’s a review comment that you don’t agree with, it is important that you don’t ignore it. Instead, include an explanation of why you haven’t made that change with your resubmission. The editor can then make an assessment and include your explanation when the amended article is sent back to the reviewers.
You are entitled to defend your position but, when you do, make sure that the tone of your explanation is assertive and persuasive, rather than defensive or aggressive.
If there are any reviewer’s comments which you don’t understand or don’t know how to respond to, please get in touch with the journal’s editor and ask for their advice.
Once you resubmit your manuscript the editor will look through the revisions. They will often send it out for a second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to assess how you’ve responded to their comments. If your revisions have now brought the paper up to the standard required by that journal, it then moves to the next stage.
Congratulations! Your article will be published soon!