Journal of Neurosurgery Academy

Journal of Neurosurgery Academy (JNA) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and ethical research practices. The journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Scope of Peer Review

All surgical procedure articles, case reports and accompanying surgical videos submitted to JNA undergo peer review prior to publication. The journal does not publish original research articles, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, or meta-analyses. The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any initial submission. All decisions are based on editorial assessment, reviewer feedback, manuscript quality, scientific merit, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and compliance with ethical and reporting standards.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts and videos are screened by the Editorial Office and Handling Editor to determine whether they:

• Fall within the scope of the journal.
• Adhere to the journal's author guidelines.
• Include appropriate patient consent documentation.
• Protect patient confidentiality and privacy.
• Meet minimum standards for scientific, clinical, and educational quality.
• Include a video of sufficient technical quality for review.

Submissions that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their expertise. The journal’s reviewer database is continuously updated. JNA may consider non-binding reviewer suggestions from authors, but such recommendations are not necessarily used.

Eligible submissions are assigned to a Handling Editor, who invites at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant surgical specialty and procedure. Reviewers are not members of the journal's editorial decision-making team for the assigned manuscript.

Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the submitted work.

Peer Review Model

The journal operates a double-anonymous peer review process.

• The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
• The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
• Reviewers are not informed of the identities of other reviewers assigned to the same manuscript.
• Authors are required to submit an anonymized manuscript that does not contain names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that could directly or indirectly identify the authors.
• The title page and other author-identifying information are submitted separately from the anonymized manuscript.

Authors should follow the journal's anonymized Submission Procedure provided in the author guidelines when preparing their manuscript and associated files for submission.

Reviewer Identity and Review Reports

Reviewers submit their review reports confidentially to the editor. A reviewer may provide their name or signature when submitting a report to the editorial office. Such identifying information is available to the editor but is not disclosed to the authors.

Before reviewer comments are communicated to the authors, the editor removes the reviewer's name, signature, affiliation, and any other information that could identify the reviewer.

Reviewer comments are provided to authors using anonymous designations such as:

Reviewer 1 — Comments

Reviewer 2 — Comments

Accordingly, reviewer reports received by the editorial office may contain the reviewer's identifying information, but the version of the comments provided to the authors does not.

Review Process

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive comments that assist the editor in reaching a decision and, where appropriate, help authors improve their manuscript.

Review of Manuscript and Video

The accompanying surgical video is considered an integral component of the submission and is reviewed together with the manuscript.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

• Clinical relevance and educational value of the case.
• Accuracy and appropriateness of the surgical technique.
• Clarity and completeness of the procedural description.
• Consistency between the manuscript and video content.
• Quality of operative visualization and narration.
• Demonstration of critical surgical steps and decision-making.
• Reporting of outcomes, complications, and limitations.
• Compliance with ethical standards and patient confidentiality requirements.

JNA does not publish reviewer reports alongside accepted articles. The peer review process remains confidential as part of the journal’s editorial procedures.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor, together with one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: If the manuscript meets the journal's standards and the reviewers' feedback is favorable, the article is accepted for publication.
• Minor Revisions: If the manuscript is generally solid but requires minor improvements, the author is asked to revise the manuscript and resubmit it for a final review.
• Major Revisions: If the manuscript has potential but needs significant improvements, the author is encouraged to revise and resubmit the manuscript. The reviewers will provide detailed suggestions on areas for improvement, and the manuscript will go through another round of review.
• Reject: If the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or the reviewers’ feedback is overwhelmingly negative, it may be rejected

Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor considers the reviewer reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief or designated Senior Editor. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or delegated senior editorial authority.

Editorial decisions are based on:

• Reviewer assessments.
• Clinical and educational value of the submission.
• Quality and completeness of the accompanying video.
• Ethical and professional standards.
• Suitability for the journal's readership.

Revisions

Authors receiving a request for revision should submit:

• A revised manuscript.
• A revised video, if requested.
• A point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

 Peer Review of Supplementary Materials

Any supplementary figures, operative images, videos, appendices, or supporting materials submitted with the manuscript are included in the peer review process.

Exceptions to Peer Review

Editorial announcements, corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and other editorial content may not undergo external peer review.

Timeliness

The journal aims to provide an initial editorial decision within a reasonable timeframe following submission. However, acceptance cannot be guaranteed, and review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the submission.

If significant delays occur, authors will be informed and may withdraw their manuscript if they wish.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the review process when appropriate.

Ethical Requirements

All submissions must comply with applicable ethical standards, including obtaining informed patient consent for publication of case details, images, and videos. Submissions that do not meet ethical requirements will not be considered for publication.