Reviewers receive guidance and tools to evaluate negative results with rigor and clarity. Resources support consistent decisions and constructive feedback.

• Reviewer checklists for negative results reporting
• Templates for structured review reports
• Guidance on statistical and methodological evaluation
• Ethics and conflict of interest summaries
• Assess clarity of hypotheses and outcome definitions.
• Verify methodological rigor and appropriate statistical analysis.
• Check adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT or PRISMA.
• Comment on relevance of negative or null findings.
• Review data availability and reproducibility statements.
• Confirm ethical approvals and consent disclosures.
• Provide constructive feedback and prioritize major issues.
• Indicate whether revisions can be addressed within the stated timeline.
• Assess whether null findings are interpreted appropriately.
• Check completeness of outcome reporting and transparency.
• Evaluate adequacy of statistical power and assumptions.
• Review clarity of protocols and preregistration details.
• Assess adherence to data sharing expectations.
• Comment on the suitability of methods for replication.
• Confirm that limitations are discussed candidly.
• Review the clarity of figures, tables, and appendices.
• Evaluate consistency between methods and results sections.
• Recommend improvements to reporting of null outcomes.
• Confirm conflict of interest and funding disclosures.
• Assess whether conclusions avoid overstating effects.
• Suggest sensitivity analyses where appropriate.
• Review whether data access instructions are clear.
• Assess whether methods are sufficient to support null conclusions.
• Check that effect sizes and confidence intervals are reported.
• Evaluate whether data and code availability statements are complete.
• Confirm that protocol deviations are documented and discussed.
• Review whether conclusions are cautious and avoid overinterpretation.
• Note if sample size and power limitations are acknowledged.
• Assess clarity of negative results in the abstract and title.
• Check consistency between figures, tables, and text.
• Recommend additional robustness checks if needed.
• Verify disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding.
• Check whether the study reports null findings in all stated outcomes.

The editorial office provides orientation and support for new reviewers.

IJNR is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing of negative, null, and inconclusive results. We emphasize reproducible methods, full outcome reporting, and ethical compliance across all article types.

The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].

We encourage complete reporting, data availability, and candid discussion of limitations to strengthen the research record.