Peer Review Process

NeuroLingua employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure the integrity, objectivity, and scholarly merit of all published work. The identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed throughout the review process.

All manuscripts undergo a structured nine-step peer review process:

1. Submission: Manuscripts are submitted via the Open Journal System (OJS). Alternative submission by email is temporarily accepted during the journal’s initial phase.
2. Initial Editorial Screening: The editorial team verifies scope alignment, formatting compliance, and conducts an early quality check. Eligible manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin.
3. Assessment by the Editor-in-Chief: Manuscripts are reviewed for originality, relevance, and significance. Noncompliant papers may be desk-rejected at this stage.
4. Reviewer Selection: The handling editor assigns at least two reviewers based on expertise and conflict-of-interest checks.
5. Reviewer Invitation & Acceptance: Invited reviewers evaluate based on availability and relevance. Declining reviewers may suggest alternatives.
6. Review Process: Reviewers assess academic contribution, clarity, methodology, and ethical rigor. Recommendations include:
   • Accept without revision
   • Minor revisions
   • Major revisions
   • Reject
7. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers’ feedback, the editor issues a final decision. Discrepancies may trigger a third review.
8. Communication to Author: Decision and anonymous comments are sent to the corresponding author for response and revision.
9. Final Publication: Accepted manuscripts proceed to editing and formatting. Revised submissions may be reassessed depending on revision scope.

The expected time from submission to first decision is 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and revision rounds.

All stages adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to uphold transparency and fairness.