For reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
What a review of a negative, null, non-confirmatory or inconclusive result is asked to establish, and the conditions under which it is carried out.
A review answers one question: does the evidence presented support the claim made? Each manuscript is judged against the expectations for its article type, and its conclusions should be proportionate to the evidence.
IJNR publishes rigorously conducted research reporting negative, null, non-confirmatory or inconclusive findings across scientific disciplines, including unsuccessful replications, evidence-supported methodological limitations, and systematic reviews or meta-analyses of such findings. Eligible manuscripts are assessed on methodological quality, ethical standards and transparent reporting. Positive confirmatory findings fall outside the journal's remit.
The journal
- Published by
- Open Access Pub
- ISSN
- 2641-9181
- Short code
- IJNR
- Access
- Open access, CC BY 4.0
The assessment
What to examine
These are the points a report is most useful on, in roughly the order they matter.
Article type
Judge the manuscript against the expectations for its type. Original Research and Short Communications: the hypothesis or question tested and, where applicable to the design, outcomes, power and statistics. Review Articles: the review question, search, selection, synthesis and risk of bias, with PRISMA where applicable. Methods and Tools: the performance or claim evaluated, evaluation criteria, baselines and the reproducibility of the evaluation.
Question and outcomes
Is the hypothesis, research question or review question clear, and do the outcomes match the registration or protocol where one exists?
Design and power
Is the design appropriate to the question? Where applicable to the study design, are sample size and statistical power justified, does the manuscript say whether the study could have detected the effect of interest, and are the limitations acknowledged?
Analysis
Are the statistical or synthesis methods suited to the data and their assumptions met? Are effect sizes and confidence intervals reported where applicable to the study design, and would a sensitivity analysis help?
Complete reporting
Are all outcomes reported, including non-significant ones? Are protocol deviations documented and discussed, and is the relevant reporting guideline, such as CONSORT or PRISMA, followed where applicable?
Interpretation
Is the finding interpreted appropriately, and are the conclusions proportionate to the evidence, stating what the data can and cannot show without overstating the absence of an effect? Is the nature of the finding stated clearly in the title and abstract?
Reproducibility
Are the data- and code-availability statements complete, and are the methods described well enough to be replicated?
Ethics
Are ethics approvals and consent, where applicable, and conflict-of-interest and funding disclosures in place? For animal research, are IACUC or equivalent approval, animal-welfare measures and ARRIVE reporting in place?
Scope
Does the manuscript fall within the journal’s remit as stated above? Scope is an editorial question — note your view and leave the decision to the editor.
The report
Writing it
A useful report separates what must change from what would improve the work, and gives reasons an author can act on.
Be specific
Point to the figure, table, section or line. A general impression is hard to answer; a located objection is not.
Separate the categories
Distinguish major issues — methodology, data integrity, reporting transparency — from minor points of clarity and presentation.
Give your reasoning
State why a method or an inference is inadequate, and where possible what would settle it.
Recommend, do not decide
Recommend acceptance, revision or rejection, with the reasons for it. The recommendation informs the editor; the decision remains with the editor.
Conditions
Obligations of review
Accepting a review means accepting these.
Review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Confidentiality
The manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it with anyone not part of the review, or use its content before publication.
Files after review
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Competing interests
Decline where a recent collaboration, a shared institution, or a commercial or personal relationship would affect your judgment, or could reasonably be seen to. Say so rather than adjusting for it privately.
AI use
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Own submissions
A reviewer’s own submissions are assessed on the same criteria as any other.
Taking part
Reviewing for the journal
Researchers willing to review can register through the journal’s reviewer registration page, or write to the editorial office at [email protected] with their subject area and methods, and an ORCID iD where available.
Reviewers can ask the editorial office for guidance at any point in a review. The criteria on which editorial decisions rest are set out in Editorial Policies, and the journal’s remit in Aims and Scope.
Submission routes
Primary route
Alternative route
Assisted route
Authors must use only one submission route for the same manuscript.