Reviewer Guidelines

Overview

The Journal of Neurosurgery Academy employs a double-anonymous peer-review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic value of published manuscripts. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining publication standards by providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Evaluate manuscripts objectively based on their academic merit, originality, relevance, methodological rigor and scientific contribution
  2. Provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.
  3. Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript information and review materials.
  4. Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  5. Complete reviews within the timeframe specified by the editor or promptly notify the editor if additional time is required.
  6. Report any concerns regarding research integrity, ethical misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or citation manipulation.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

  1. Title and Abstract

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • The title accurately reflects the case and surgical procedure.
  • The abstract clearly summarizes the clinical problem, intervention, outcomes, and key learning points.
  1. Case Presentation

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • Patient demographics and clinical presentation are adequately described.
  • Diagnostic investigations are appropriate and clearly reported.
  • The indication for surgery is adequately justified.
  • Relevant clinical findings are presented logically and comprehensively.
  • Patient confidentiality is fully maintained.
  1. Surgical Procedure

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • The surgical technique is described clearly and accurately.
  • Procedural steps are presented in sufficient detail
  • Technical aspects, instruments, devices, and operative strategies are adequately explained.
  • Intraoperative findings are clearly reported.
  • Any technical innovations, modifications, or unique aspects are highlighted.
  • Potential challenges, limitations, or complications are discussed.
  1. Outcomes and Follow-up

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • Postoperative outcomes are clearly reported.
  • Follow-up duration is appropriate.
  • Complications, adverse events, and management strategies are adequately described
  1. Video Assessment

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • The video is of adequate visual and audio quality.
  • Key procedural steps are clearly demonstrated.
  • Narration, annotations, subtitles, or labels are accurate and informative.
  • The video supports and complements the written manuscript.
  • Patient identifiers are absent.
  • The video provides significant educational value for surgeons and trainees.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should determine whether:

  • Appropriate permissions, approvals, or informed consent procedures have been reported when applicable.
  • The manuscript complies with accepted standards of research and publication ethics.

Research Integrity

Reviewers should immediately notify the editor if they identify:

  • Plagiarism or substantial text overlap.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data.
  • Inappropriate citation practices, including citation manipulation.
  • Any other form of research or publication misconduct.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

To protect manuscript confidentiality:

  • Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or manuscript content to generative artificial intelligence tools or external systems that may store, share, or use submitted material.
  • Any use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the journal's confidentiality and ethical policies.

Review Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

  1. Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision.
  2. Minor Revision – The manuscript requires minor improvements before publication.
  3. Major Revision – The manuscript requires substantial revisions and should be re-evaluated after revision.
  4. Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

Reviewers should provide detailed comments supporting their recommendation.

Review Procedure

  1. The editor invites reviewers to evaluate a submitted manuscript.
  2. Reviewers assess whether they have the expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest necessary to conduct the review.
  3. Reviewers complete the review within the specified timeline.
  4. Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation.
  5. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
  6. The editor makes the final publication decision based on reviewer feedback and editorial judgment.

Peer Review Ethics

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Act with professionalism, fairness, and impartiality.
  2. Evaluate manuscripts solely on academic and scientific merit.
  3. Avoid discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.
  4. Maintain confidentiality before, during, and after the review process.
  5. Refrain from using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
  6. Declare conflicts of interest promptly.
  7. Provide respectful, constructive, and professional feedback.