JICNA is committed to publishing high quality new work that makes a significant contribution to the field of child neurology. In order to meet this aim, submitted manuscripts undergo initial evaluation by an editor to ensure that they meet essential criteria for publication in the journal. Only those manuscripts that pass this initial review process will be forwarded to reviewers for further consideration.

All manuscripts submitted to JICNA are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers, and usually three reviewers, of the journal’s international Editorial Review Board of experts in fields specifically matching the journal topics. Peer review is by invitation only and is closed. The peer review process for JICNA is led by the Editors, which means they are responsible for identifying appropriate experts from relevant fields. However, to ensure balance and to facilitate the peer review process the authors may also suggest suitable reviewers when required.

Papers are reviewed, double-blind, in full publishable form; no journal manuscripts are accepted based only upon submission of an abstract. Reviewers are required to provide the author with comments intended to improve the content, style, and other issues which should improve the quality of the article.

If the study includes complex statistical analysis or new statistical methods, JICNA Editors will as far as posisble ensure that at least one of the reviewers has a proven track record as a statistics expert, and may ask the authors to suggest additional statistics experts as the peer review process progresses.

We ask that authors do not approach reviewers about the peer review process independently, as this has the potential to influence and invalidate their review.
The Editorial Team’s Role is to
  • ensure the reviewer criteria are met;
  • act as the intermediary between authors and reviewers;
  • contact the reviewers on the authors’ behalf;
  • ensure all aspects of an article are reviewed;
  • check the peer review reports before they are published;
  • when necessary supplement the reviewer suggestions for e.g in the case of Opinion and Review articles, or articles on controversial topics.

Submission evaluation criteria

  • Value or usefulness to field or profession.
  • Adequacy of design/accuracy of analysis.
  • Presentation and interpretation of findings, discussion, and conclusions.
  • Inclusion of appropriate implications for practice and/or policy.
  • Important and timely.
  • Consistency with existing literature.
  • Overall clarity of ideas and expression.
  • References to relevant existing work.
  • Grammatical construction; writing style; use of non-sexist language.
Reviewer Criteria
  • Qualified: Reviewers should typically hold a doctorate (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent). Exceptions will be made for scholarly disciplines where doctorates are not necessary (e.g. Education, Library Science), or when an individual has a demonstrable public record of expertise. 
  • Expert: Reviewers should have published at least three articles as lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years or the suggested reviewer’s expertise is demonstrable in ways other than their publication record.
  • Impartial: Reviewers should not have any competing interests that can bias their assessment of the article – they should not be close collaborators of authors or be personally, associated with them. For example, a reviewer should not:
    • have co-authored with any of the lead authors in the three years preceding
    • currently work at the same institution as the authors;
    • be a close collaborator with an author.

All communication with the reviewers is done by the editorial team, on behalf of the authors. The reviewer names and their reports are not published alongside the article, and the authors’ responses to the reviewers (or to reader comments) are not posted for readers to see. Revisions and updates are published as new versions, with clear explanations (in an “Amendments” section) of the changes the authors made.

The editors choose an approval status following peer review which determines whether the article has ‘passed peer review’ and is indexed in bibliographic databases, such as Medline, PubMed and PubMed Central.

Excluding Peer Review

In some cases, where editors have not actively pursued peer review, the JICNA editorial team may add an explanation on the article to alert readers that the article has not been peer reviewed. Often this applies for invited editorials.

Appeal Process

Our appeal procedure provides authors with the opportunity to respond to the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors have the right to appeal to the editor against any decision taken on their manuscript at any stage; an appeal will be considered at the discretion of the JICNA Editorial Board & The ICNA.

How do I appeal?

Step 1: Send a rebuttal letter to the editor via email editor@jicna.org. Your letter should explain clearly why you disagree with the decision on your manuscript, and should include a detailed response to any reviewers’ comments
Step 2: The editor will consider your appeal. All appeal requests are handled on a case by case basis and the editor's decision is final.

If your appeal is granted

Step 3: Your manuscript will undergo further assessment by an independent reviewer.
Step 4: The editor will make a final decision on your manuscript.