For editors
Guidelines for Editors
Operational guidance for handling a manuscript: what to assess, what to disclose, and what to protect.
An editor’s task is to reach a well-reasoned decision on the evidence in front of them and to protect the process that produced it. In this journal that means judging whether a negative, null, non-confirmatory or inconclusive result is sound, not whether it is welcome.
The rules below are the journal’s policy applied to the editor’s role. The same policy in full is on Editorial Policies.
The journal
- Published by
- Open Access Pub
- ISSN
- 2641-9181
- Short code
- IJNR
- Access
- Open access, CC BY 4.0
Handling
The editorial sequence
Each stage has its own question; keeping them separate is what makes a decision explainable.
01
Scope and screening
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Confirm that the manuscript falls within the remit (negative, null, non-confirmatory or inconclusive findings, unsuccessful replications, evidence-supported methodological limitations, or systematic reviews or meta-analyses of such findings), since positive confirmatory findings fall outside it; then assess the question asked and the evidence offered.
02
Conflicts
Before handling a manuscript, check for a competing interest — a recent collaboration, a shared institution, a commercial or personal relationship. Where one exists, pass the manuscript to another editor and record that you have done so.
03
Reviewer selection
Select reviewers for subject expertise and methodological match, drawing on more than one group where the topic allows. Arrange statistical review for complex models or trials, and check each reviewer for competing interests before inviting them.
04
Decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Base the decision on the reviews and the manuscript, and give authors reasons specific enough to act on.
Negative results
Assessing a null finding
Each manuscript is assessed against the expectations for its article type, and its conclusions are expected to be proportionate to the evidence.
Article type
Judge each manuscript against the expectations for its type, as set out in Instructions for Authors. Original Research and Short Communications state the hypothesis or question tested; Review Articles state the review question and report search, selection and synthesis methods; Methods and Tools papers state the performance or claim evaluated, with evaluation criteria, benchmarks and baselines.
Design and power
Where applicable to the study design, request the power calculation or sample-size justification and ask reviewers whether the study could have detected the effect of interest. This bears on the strength of the conclusions rather than on eligibility: inconclusive findings and evidence-supported methodological failures are eligible when reported transparently.
Complete reporting
Check that prespecified outcomes, where they exist, are reported, that protocol deviations are disclosed, and that the relevant reporting guideline has been followed where applicable.
Interpretation
Check that the conclusions are proportionate to the evidence, state what the data can and cannot show and do not overstate the absence of an effect, with limitations and directions for future research stated.
Verification
Confirm ethics approvals (for animal research, IACUC or equivalent approval, animal-welfare measures and ARRIVE reporting), consent documentation, trial registration details where applicable, data-availability statements and repository links before acceptance.
Obligations
What an editor protects
These apply from the moment a manuscript is assigned.
Review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Its existence, content and reviews are not disclosed to anyone outside the editorial process.
Independence
Editorial decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships and institutional relationships. An editor’s own submission is handled by another editor, independently.
AI use
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same condition applies to editorial assessment.
Integrity concerns
Where a concern arises about originality, data, authorship or ethics, pause the decision and refer the matter to the editorial office rather than resolving it in correspondence with the authors alone.
The published record
Where a published article needs to change, a correction, expression of concern or retraction notice is issued and remains permanently linked to the original.
Related guidance
Working with reviewers and authors
Reviewer-facing guidance is on For Reviewers, and author requirements on Instructions for Authors. The remit an editor assesses against is on Aims and Scope.
Researchers interested in editorial work can register through the journal’s editor registration page. Questions about a specific manuscript, or about this guidance, go to the editorial office at [email protected].
Submission routes
Primary route
Alternative route
Assisted route
Authors must use only one submission route for the same manuscript.