PEER REVIEW POLICY
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
DATA SHARING POLICY
TYPES OF MANUSCRIPTS
All published articles in the NeuroPharmac Journal are open access and are freely available for anyone to access, view and download throughout the globe in both HTML and PDF versions. Author Gate Publications open access journals serve the authors and the wider community of scientists by publishing a high-quality, double blinded peer-reviewed open access content.
All open access publications are published under Creative Commons Licenses (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
1. Author Gate Publications developed its own manuscript management system called ‘author-gate’ (https://www.author-gate.com).
2. The ‘author-gate’ is online manuscript management and processing system which allows you to submit articles online and track their status up to the publication stage.
3. This is a secure and easy to use service for the uploading, reviewing, and editing of manuscripts. ‘author-gate’ enables manuscripts to be received and processed remotely by editors and reviewers from any place and computer at any time, with built-in mobile and email alerts as well as plagiarism checking tools.
4. The ‘author-gate’ drastically decreases time spent on processing and peer-reviewing submitted manuscripts.
5. After plagiarism check by iThenticate and manuscripts that are found suitable for publication are sent to two or more expert reviewers by the editor.
6. During submission, the author is asked to provide names of two or three reviewers who have experience in the subject of the submitted manuscript area. This step is optional.
7. The reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institutes as the contributor/s authors.
8. The journal follows a double-blind review process, wherein the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity.
9. The comments and suggestions (acceptance/ rejection/ revision in manuscript) received from reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author. If required, the author is requested to provide a point by point response to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. This process is repeated till reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript.
10. Manuscripts accepted for publication are copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author.
11. The corresponding author is expected to return the corrected proofs within three days. It may not be possible to incorporate corrections received after that period. The whole process of submission of the manuscript to a final decision and sending and receiving proofs is completed online via ‘author-gate’ platform.
1. Authors need to submit their manuscripts through the online submission platform available at https://author-gate.com.
2. The first-time users need to register themselves. Registration is free.
3. Once registered, authors can use their username and password to submit and keep track of their articles.
4. In case of any technical issues, the author can contact the technical assistance at firstname.lastname@example.org
5. Articles submitted via email are not accepted.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE https://publicationethics.org/)
- World Association of Medical Editors (WAME https://www.wame.org/)
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE https://www.icmje.org)
- Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT http://www.consort-statement.org) (for protocols, see the SPIRIT guidance)
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA guidelines (for protocols, see the PRISMA-P guidelines)
- Case reports: the CARE case report guidelines
- Animal studies: ARRIVEand Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
In addition to this NeuroPharmac Journal editorial team has developed in-house publication ethics to avoid malpractice, these includes:
1. Author must ensure that submitted manuscripts are not currently under consideration for publication by another journal and not been published elsewhere.
2. Author must obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
3. Author must follow national, local, and institutional laws and requirements of World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2013 the Guidelines of Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) Human Subject Protections, NIH Policy on Use of Laboratory Animals, National Research Council Guide For studies involving human or animal subjects.
4. Author must obtain appropriate ethical permission from the Institutional Review Board.
5. Author must declare any conflicts of interest at any stage during the publication process.
6. Studies conducted must be in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for the experiments involving humans. According to the Federal Research Misconduct Policy scientific misconduct includes:
7. Plagiarism is the use of others published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source.
8. Data falsification: Fabrication, deceptive and selective reporting of findings, suppression of data and/or distortion of data, incorrect authorship, Misappropriation of the ideas of others, Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research, Violation of generally accepted research practices, any form of unethical behavior is strictly discouraged and will result in the submitting author and his group from being banned from submitting material to the journal for a time frame depending on the severity of malpractice.
9. All submitted manuscripts to our NeuroPharmac Journal evaluated before acceptance by similarity check services by iThenticate (turnitin) to maintain the quality of published works.
The NeuroPharmac Journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Criterias For Authorship, broadly this is represented below :
The ICMJE recommends that authorship is based on the following 4 criteria:
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published;
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
PEER REVIEW POLICY
1. The practice of peer review is intended to ensure that only good manuscripts are published and excellence in scholarly publishing.
2. The NeuroPharmac Journal uses ‘double blind’ reviewing, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.
3. The Chief Editors first evaluates all submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have plagiarized content, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.
4. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least two expert referees for reviewing.
5. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within two weeks of receipt.
6. Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript.
7. Reviewer should not not discuss the manuscripts with its authors either during or after the review process.
How the referee is selected?
1. The ‘author-gate’ manuscripts management system has database of reviewers.
2. Our reviewer database is constantly being updated.
3. The referees are matched to the Manuscripts according to their expertise.
4. NeuroPharmac Journal does not select the reviewer from the same institutions of authors.
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
• Is original as to thought and method (including data)
• Is methodologically sound
• Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• Correctly and exhaustively references previous relevant work
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines.
• Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field
How long does the review process take?
1. The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. (Maximum 4-6 weeks).
2. The referees’ reports contradict one another, or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought.
3. Revised manuscripts are sent to the initial referees for checking; these may then request further revision.
Final report & The Chief Editor’s decision is final
1. A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the referees.
2. Referees advises the Chief Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
3. All process of peer review is online via ‘author-gate’ manuscripts management system.
1. During the submission a manuscript to NeuroPharmac Journal, all authors agree that all copyrights of all materials included in the submitted manuscript will be exclusively transferred to the NeuroPharmac Journal once the manuscript is accepted.
2. Once the paper is published, the copyright will be released by the publisher under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), enabling the unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the published article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
3. If the manuscript contains a figure or table reproduced from a book or another journal article, the authors should obtain permission from the copyright holder before submitting the manuscript, and be fully responsible for any legal and/or financial consequences if such permissions are not obtained.
1. All published version preserved by using the long-term preservation services. Our Journal uses the Internet Archive policy and hosting server of publisher at https://authorgatepublications.com/
Conflicts of Interest/ Competing Interests
1. All Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript and its outcomes or any institution or product that is mentioned in the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Approval and Informed Consent
1. All animal studies must have an appropriate institutional review board (IRB)or animal care committee approval.
2. All human studies must have appropriate institutional review board approval, and signed informed consent from all human participants is required.
3. Compliance with these rules must be stated in the text, including waiver of consent by the IRB, if applicable. Manuscripts that do not comply with these rules will not be accepted for publication.
4. Patient consent and/or Ethical approval statements along with Protocol number and date must be included in all research articles.
1. NeuroPharmac Journal encourages authors to share the data and other materials supporting the results in the paper by archiving it in an appropriate public repository.
2. Author Gate Publications encourage authors of articles published in the NeuroPharmac Journal to share their research data including, but not limited to raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, materials.
3. Authors may provide a data availability statement, including a link to the repository they have used, in order that this statement can be published in their paper.
4. All accepted manuscripts may elect to publish a data availability statement to confirm the presence or absence of shared data.
5. If you have shared data, this statement will describe how the data can be accessed, and include a persistent identifier (e.g., a DOI for the data, or an accession number) from the repository where you shared the data.
• Manuscripts are prepared using Microsoft Word, with the following specifications: (1) A4 size, (2) one inch margin in all sides, (3) Times New Roman font type, (4) font size 12, and (5) page number on the center, bottom part of the page.
1. The journal allows a generous amount of word limitations for different types of manuscript submitted.
2. Quantitative and qualitative manuscripts, including mixed-methods studies are allowed up to 5000 words, including the Abstract and the References.
3. All forms of reviews are given a maximum of 6000 words, including the Abstract and the References.
4. All other types of manuscript are allowed up to 3000 words, including the Abstract and the References.
5. These restrictions also apply on the revised version of the manuscript after peer review.
A cover letter should accompany the submitted manuscript. The cover letter will provide brief information about the submitted study. It also contains statements declaring
(1) the manuscript has been submitted solely to the journal and has not been published elsewhere,
(2) the authors meet all the four criteria of authorship stated above,
(3) the manuscript is prepared on the basis of the journal’s guideline,
(4) the referencing style and the references follow the prescribed style of the journal,
(5) the ethical approval of the study is submitted, and
(6) the conflict of interest (COI) is disclosed. The cover letter must be signed by all the listed authors.
The title page must contain all the general information about the manuscript as follows:
• Title of the Study: Should be self-explanatory and usually not more than 12 words. Name of countries or institutions should not be included in the title of the study.
• Author Information: This part includes the author’s complete name (first name, middle initial, and last name), at most three qualifications, job title, department (or college), university/institution where the work should be attributed (maximum of three is allowed), complete address of the university/institution, email address, and Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID). The arrangement of authors in the title page should be decided by the authors. All information about the authors should be included in the title page. No authors’ information must be included in the manuscript.
• Corresponding Author: One author should be assigned as the corresponding author. Additional contact information, such as mailing address, telephone number, and fax number, must be included.
• Funding Statement: The statement should include the name of the funder, the name of the grant (if available), the grant number, and the complete address of the funder. It is the responsibility of the authors to make sure for the correctness of the funder’s information. Authors may use the Open Funder Registry for the accurate nomenclature of their funder (https://www.crossref.org/services/funder-registry). If none, this statement must be written:“This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.”
• COI Statement: Authors’ potential COI should be clearly stated. If none, a statement “The authors declare no conflict of interest” should be stated.
• An abstract must be written at the beginning of the manuscript. The journal uses a structured abstract. All manuscripts are allowed up to 250 words with the following headings: Introduction, Aim, Method, Results, and Conclusion. The abstract should be able to stand alone and should not contain any references.
TYPES OF MANUSCRIPTS
A. Original Articles
Original articles must contain data that have not been previously reported. Manuscripts must be original and exhibit excellent scientific rigor and merit. Secondary data analysis may be considered if meaningful and significant justification is provided. Generally, original articles have the following main sections:
• Introduction: This section must provide context and background of the issue and incorporate national and international literature. The nature of the problem, as well as the significance of the study, must be explicitly discussed. The objectives and hypotheses being tested should also be included. Only the most recent literature related to the problem studied, as well as articles published in credible journals, should be included.
• Methods:This should contain complete information about the materials and methods employed in the study. Authors can use subheadings, such as design, samples and settings, ethical consideration, measures/instrument/assessments, recruitment and data collection, data analysis, and if a qualitative or mixed-method study, rigor and trustworthiness. In the study design, authors are required to explain the suitability of the chosen design. Complete description of the settings of the study is needed to improve the transferability of the reported findings to other settings. The sample size, sampling technique, and sample size calculation must also be presented in detail. Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be elaborated. For experimental studies, description of the experimental participants (patients, including controls) is required.Detailed descriptions of the instruments are required. Including the following information in this subsection is recommended: (1) description of the tool [including how many items, type of questions, dimensions/sub-scales if present], (2) what the tool measures, (3) scoring and possible range of scores as needed, (4) how results are interpreted, and (5) validity and reliability of the tool. Permissions must be sought before any research tool is used. For ethical considerations, please refer to the Research Ethics Policy section. A detailed description of the recruitment and the data collection must be presented. Manuscripts reporting randomized clinical trials (RCT) should adhere to the guidelines recommended by the CONSORT Statement (http://www.consort-statement.org).The journal will only consider RCTs registered in a World Health Organization-accredited trial registry, such as clinicaltrials.gov.
• Results:This section must be presented in a coherent manner. Textual presentation of the findings is necessary and should not be a repetition of the data presented in tables or figures. Large tables, figures, and materials can be submitted as supplementary materials and will be published alongside the article when accepted as supplementary file. The authors must comply with the proper reporting of results of different statistical analyses. Tables and figures should be referenced accurately and properly in the results section. See the guidelines regarding the use of tables and figures below.
• Discussion:This section should include a summary of important results, interpretations, and implications. It should discuss related articles that support or oppose the current findings and present possible explanation on the differences or similarities of the results. The strengths and limitations of the study should be explicitly discussed in this section. Recommendations for future studies may be incorporated. Authors are advised to make the discussion as briefly and concisely as possible and avoid repetition of information mentioned in the introduction and methods sections. The most recent literature and articles published in credible journals should be used to support arguments in the study.
• Conclusion:This section must briefly discuss what can be concluded from the findings.
B. Review Articles
Authors are expected to adhere to the recommended reporting style of PRISMA found in https://www.prisma-statement.org. The title should emphasize whether the article is systematic, meta-analysis, or both.
• Introduction:The introduction must include the reason of conducting the review and what knowledge on the topic has already been established. Authors must provide the question tackled in the review in accordance with the Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, Study, and Design format.
• Methods:The method section must contain the following information: registration and protocol information, inclusion criteria, source/s of information, search strategy, process of choosing the articles included, methods of extracting data, information about the variables of interest, strategies utilized to assess the risks of bias of each article, summary of measures, description of strategies used to handle data and to combine findings of studies, strategies utilized to assess the risks of bias affecting aggregated evidence, and other types of analyses used.
• Results:Information on selecting the articles using a flowchart (the number of articles screened, evaluated for eligibility, and included;the reasons for non-inclusion in every stage), characteristics of the data extracted, presentation of data, risks of bias for every article, findings of each article, synthesis of findings, presentation of the findings on the assessed risk of bias across all articles, and presentation of findings of other analyses. The results of literature reviews are usually summarized using table.Hence, long tables must be submitted to the journal as supplementary files.
• Discussion:For the discussion section, authors must provide a summary of the key results indicating the strength of evidence for each outcome variable and discussing their significance. Limitations of the review must be discussed.
• Conclusion:Authors must offer a general interpretation of findings within the framework of existing evidence, and implications to further studies must be presented in the conclusion section.
C. Evidence-based Summary
This type of article summarizes evidence originating from high-quality systematic review for healthcare workers, patients, and policymakers. In general, evidence-based summary reports have the following structure:
• Introduction: This section describes the problem and its importance.
• Aim:The aim presents the question/s the evidence-based summary summary searched and answered. Hypotheses are occasionally presented.
• Methods:This section provides a detailed description of the strategy used to gather the evidence, including the criteria used to include or exclude evidence and appraisal of evidence.
• Results:This section shows the yield of the search strategies; the number of articles rejected at every stage (title, abstract, and full copy); and the final number of articles included and critical appraisal scores. An evidence table is usually presented.
• Discussion:Authors must present critical analyses of the findings reported. The core arguments are presented in this section.
• Conclusions:Authors should draw conclusions out of the analyses of the literature and providean overall conclusion regarding the quality of the evidence.
D. Case Reports
The journal accepts case reports that are novel, new, thought-provoking, or rare. NeuroPharmac Journal requires case reports to have the following sections:
• Introduction:This section provides a brief and concise summary of the problem/s addressed by the report
• Cases:The authors are required to describe the patient, provide the history of the case, present the findings of physical examination, pathological tests, and other related tests conducted, plan of treatment, expected outcomes, and actual outcomes. A subheading on patient informed consent and ethical considerations is a vital component of this section.
• Discussion:The discussion section must start with the discussion of the rationale and significance of the case and the problem. An overview of what is already known in the subject must be provided and should focus on the misunderstandings or challenges addressed in the case. Authors should discuss the case within the context of existing evidence, whether the present findings validate or go against the present knowledge. The contribution to clinical practice must be highlighted in this section.
• Conclusion:The report must end with a summary of the key points. Recommendations are made in this section.
E. Letter to the Editor
• NeuroPharmac Journal accepts brief and critical letters to the editor that focus on studies published (including editorials/commentaries) in the journal.
• NeuroPharmac Journal does not accept preliminary observations that require a follow-up paper for validation. The journal allows a maximum of 500 words with not more than five (5) references.
• NeuroPharmac Journal also publishes commentary, editorials and guest or invited editorials.
1. References that are published in non-credible journals, predatory journals, or journals published by predatory publishers should not be cited.
2. References should be numbered consecutively following the order they were cited in the manuscript.
3. The references in text, tables, and legends should be indicated through Arabic numbers in superscript after the punctuation marks.
4. References cited only in tables or figure legends must be numbered in accordance with the sequence established by the first identification in the text of the particular table or figure.
5. The style of the examples provided and are established on the formats used by the NLM in Index Medicus should be followed.
6. Journal titles must be abbreviated fitting to the style used in Index Medicus. The complete name of the journal for non-indexed journals should be utilized, and using abstracts as references are discouraged.
7. Information from manuscripts submitted but not accepted should be cited in the text as ‘unpublished observations’ with written permission from the source. Citing ‘personal communication’ should be avoided unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text.
8. The commonly cited types of references are shown. For other types of references such as newspaper items please refer to ICMJE Guidelines (https://www.icmje.org or https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html)
Articles in Journals
• Standard journal article (for up to six authors):
Almarshad F, Alaklabi A, Bakhsh E, Pathan A, Almegren M. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in daily practice. Am J Blood Res. 2018 Dec 10;8(4):57-72.
• Standard journal article (for more than six authors):
List the first six contributors followed by et al.: Alrashed AA, Aljammaz KI, Pathan A, Mandili AA, Almatrafi SA, Almotire MH, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease among Shaqra University students, Saudi Arabia. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019 Feb;8(2):462-467.
• Volume with supplement:
Geraud G, Spierings EL, Keywood C. Tolerability and safety of frovatriptan with short- and long-term use for treatment of migraine and in comparison with sumatriptan. Headache. 2002;42 Suppl 2:S93-9.
• Issue with supplement:
Glauser TA. Integrating clinical trial data into clinical practice. Neurology. 2002;58(12 Suppl 7):S6-12.
Books and Other Monographs
• Personal author(s):
Murray PR, Rosenthal KS, Kobayashi GS, Pfaller MA. Medical microbiology. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002.
• Editor(s), compiler(s) as author:
Gilstrap LC 3rd, Cunningham FG, VanDorsten JP, editors. Operative obstetrics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
• Chapter in a book: Meltzer PS, Kallioniemi A, Trent JM. Chromosome alterations in human solid tumors. In: Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, editors. The genetic basis of human cancer. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002. p. 93-113.
Electronic Sources as Reference
• Journal article on the Internet:
Abood S. Quality improvement initiative in nursing homes: the ANA acts in an advisory role. Am J Nurs. 2002 Jun [cited 2002 Aug 12];102(6):[about 1 p.]. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2002/06000/Quality_Improvement_Initiative_in_Nursing_Homes.31.aspx
Monograph on the Internet
• Foley KM, Gelband H, editors. Improving palliative care for cancer [Internet]. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001 [cited 2002 Jul 9]. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10149/improving-palliative-care-for-cancer.
Homepage / Website
• eatright.org [Internet]. Chicago: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; c2016 [cited 2016 Dec 27]. Available from: https://www.eatright.org/
Part of a Homepage / Website
• American Medical Association [Internet]. Chicago: The Association; c1995-2016 [cited 2016 Dec 27]. Office of International Medicine; [about 2 screens]. Available from: https://www.ama-assn.org/about/office-international-medicine
• Tables should be clear, easily understood, and can stand alone.
• Title describing the contents of the table should be indicated on top of the table.
• The columns and rows should not exceed 10 and 25, respectively.
• Arabic numerals must be used in numbering the tables, consistent with their appearance in the text.
• Descriptions, definitions, and acronyms must be indicated in the footnotes.
• Authors are responsible in obtaining permission to use tables and figures in the present study and credits should be indicated at the footnote.
• The use of the symbol * is reserved for statistical significance (* for 0.05, ** for 0.01, and *** for 0.001). Other symbols should be used in this order: †, ‡, §, ||, ¶, ††, and ‡‡.
• Tables must be placed in a separate file during the submission of the manuscript. They should not be incorporated on the body of the manuscript.
Illustrations and Figures
• The journal only accepts figures in JPEG format with a size of 1024 kb.
• The figures should be numbered in accordance with their appearance in the manuscript.
• Labels, numbers, and symbols must be written clearly and of the same size.
• Symbols, arrows, or letters used in the photomicrographs must be in contrast with the background and clearly marked with transfer type or by tissue overlay and not by pen.
• Titles and detailed descriptions must be written in the legends for illustrations.
• When graphs, scatter-grams, or histograms are presented, the numerical data where they are derived must be added.
• The images and figures must be cropped appropriately, andthe necessary parts must be deleted.
• Consent must accompany a picture of a person or persons if used in the paper.
• Figures that are previously published must be accompanied by permission to use and reproduce from the original author/s and must be referenced accordingly if used in the manuscript.
• NeuroPharmac Journal has the right to edit any submitted illustrations or figures in accordance with the requirements and layout of the journal.