Introduction
The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in deciding on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript.
The International Clinical Neuroscience Journal operates a single blind peer review system.
Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:
Conflict of Interest
Conflict of interest (COI) exists when an individual or institution has two or more obligations or interests that may compete with each other. WAME
Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might influence or bias their evaluation of a manuscript and reject the review request if a conflict exists. ICMJE
Confidentiality
Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Peer reviewers have an obligation to preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript during and after the review process.
Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. COPE
Fairness
Reviews should be truthful and objective, and keep unbiased by considerations related to :
Review reports
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:
Reviewers should also monitor and notice that the author(s) have followed the instructions for authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics.
The report should be precise, objective, beneficial, and clear. Comments should be supported by facts and constructive arguments regarding the content of the manuscript.
Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however, necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Manuscripts submitted to this journal are privileged and confidential communications. Reviewers must not upload, input, or copy any part of a submitted manuscript, supplementary materials, figures, data, or review correspondence into public or third-party generative AI platforms (including, but not limited to, ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or public translation engines). Doing so breaches author confidentiality, violates intellectual property rights, and risks exposing proprietary research or unpublished patient data to third-party databases.
The peer-review process relies entirely on the independent critical thinking, scientific judgment, and technical expertise of the designated expert. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using generative AI tools to read, evaluate, analyze, or generate peer-review comments or editorial recommendations. The journal requires human accountability; AI models cannot evaluate methodology, detect subtle ethical or scientific flaws, or take legal or moral responsibility for the review.
Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools solely for grammar correction or minor language refinement of their own drafted comments, provided that:
a) No portion of the manuscript text, data, hypotheses, or author-identifying details is entered into the tool.
b) The reviewer exercises complete human oversight to ensure that the suggested revisions do not distort the original intent, nuance, or scientific meaning of the feedback.
c) The tool does not store or train on the entered text under terms that compromise privacy.
Reviewers are requested to actively assist the editorial board in identifying potential integrity issues concerning AI in manuscripts:
a) Fabricated Citations: Verify references that appear plausible but may be non-existent or misattributed.
b) Plagiarism and Text Generation: Flag text that exhibits formulaic repetition, nonsensical phrasing, or superficial explanations lacking technical substance.
c) Image and Data Integrity: Note any indications of synthetic or smoothed data, aberrant microscopy/radiology patterns, or unauthorized figure manipulation.
If unacknowledged or problematic AI use is suspected, reviewers must state their concerns objectively in the “Confidential Comments to the Editor” section without making unfounded public accusations in the report to the authors.
Every assessment, critique, and recommendation submitted in a peer-review report must represent the reviewer’s own professional evaluation. Reviewers remain fully and solely responsible for the technical accuracy, fairness, objectivity, and ethical compliance of their reports.
If a reviewer uses any AI tool to assist in refining the language or syntax of their drafted report, this must be explicitly disclosed in the confidential notes to the editor, specifying the tool used and the exact extent of its application.
Timeliness
Reviewers should only accept a manuscript when they are confident that they can complete their reports in due time. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.
Recommendations
Reviewers' recommendations should be either:
Recommendations should be backed with constructive comments based on the content of the manuscript.
Resources