Iranian Journal of Neurosurgery is a peer-reviewed open access quarterly publication of Neurosurgical Society of Iran which strives for a double-blind fully scrutinized proccess of reviwing to enhance its scientific quality as well as holding the international standards and ethical approches and commisions. The review proccess flowchart of IrJNS can be seen at: ./files/site1/files/flowchart_4%282%29.pdf
To pledge to a structures proccess, IrJNS recommends the authors to consider the following checklist before submission:
Anonymizing your manuscript for double-blind peer review
- Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the manuscript, or in any Supplementary Information files (or in any file names).
- Provide a separate title page giving all the author names and affiliations (when you reach the “File Upload” stage on submission, please choose the file designation “Title Page”).
- Do not include an Acknowledgments section containing author names in the manuscript on submission. The information can be added to the manuscript after completion of the peer review process.
- Do not include work in the reference list that has not yet been accepted for publication.
- When referring to your own work within the paper, avoid using terminology that might reveal your identity (e.g. avoid phrases such as “we have previously shown [reference]”).
- Do not sign rebuttals at revision stage with author names, nor appeals.
Upon receiving a new manuscript, the Editorial office conducts initial pre-refereeing checks to ensure the article is legible, complete, correctly formatted, original, within the scope of the journal in question, in the style of a scientific article and written in clear English. Any article that has problems with any of the above criteria may be rejected at this stage.
Articles passing successfully through the pre-refereeing stage then begin formal peer review. Research papers submitted for publication are generally sent to two independent referees who are asked to report on the quality, novelty, scientific rigour, significance to the field and presentation. Referees are selected from our reviewer database and we try to find the best combination of scientific expertise and referee experience for each paper.
Authors are welcome to suggest referees for their paper if they wish but this is not required. In the interests of impartiality, if an author-suggested reviewer is used then we will complement this with a review from a second referee chosen by the journal from the general referee pool.
If there is sufficient agreement between the referees,
1 the paper may be accepted in current form;
2 the referees' reports may be sent to the authors for revision of the paper;
3 the paper may be rejected; or
4 if the paper contains too many errors or problems for the referees to comment fully on the scientific content, the authors will be asked to make corrections and then resubmit the article.
When authors make revisions to their article in response to the referees’ comments they are asked to submit a list of changes and any replies for transmission to the referees. The revised version is usually returned to at least one of the original referees who is then asked whether the revisions are satisfactory. If the referees remain dissatisfied, the paper can be referred to the Editorial Board of the journal for further consideration.
If a reviewer proves unable to report, we will try to find an alternative referee as quickly as possible. However, if a referee requests a short extension to their deadline for providing a report, we will usually grant this if it is reasonable. We try to strike a balance between the needs of authors (who will often ask for as fast a review as possible), and those of referees (who will often prefer to have more time to thoroughly study the paper and compose their report). In those rare cases where an article’s review process has been delayed due to unexpected difficulties in obtaining reports, we make use of our Editorial Board members’ expertise to conclude the process swiftly.
Authors have the right to appeal against a rejection from our journals, whether it is after full review with referee reports or at the pre-refereeing stage. To lodge an appeal the author should contact the journal e-mail address, outlining their case for reconsideration. In order to be considered appeals must directly address the reasons given for the initial rejection decision. If referee reports were included with the rejection letter then these criticisms must be responded to in the appeal. Appeals that do not address referees’ comments, or which dismiss them out of hand, will not be considered. Appeals are then sent to a member of the journal’s Editorial Board for consideration. If successful, an appeal can lead to the article’s review being resumed and the article may ultimately be published following any revisions the Board feels are necessary. However, if the appeal is rejected then the original rejection decision is upheld and no further consideration of that article is possible. Please note, we must receive your appeal within 4 weeks of your rejection decision, otherwise we are unable to consider it.