Reviewer ResourcesInternational Journal of Neuroimaging
Reviewers have access to resources that support consistent, constructive, and timely evaluations of neuroimaging manuscripts.
Resource Overview
IJNI provides reviewers with checklists, templates, and ethical guidance to support high quality reviews. These tools help reviewers focus on scientific rigor and neuroimaging relevance.
Reviewers are encouraged to use the resources to structure feedback and ensure that key reporting standards are addressed.
Available Tools
- Reviewer guidelines and checklist
- Ethics and conflict guidance
- Decision recommendation tips
- Reporting standards reminders
- Sample review templates
- Reviewer support contact
Review Support Materials
Checklist
A structured list of key quality and ethics items to verify during review.
Templates
Suggested language for major and minor comments to keep feedback clear.
Ethics Guidance
Instructions for flagging consent, privacy, or data integrity concerns.
Reporting Standards
Reminders for study design, controls, and reproducibility expectations.
Impact Criteria
Guidance for assessing neuroimaging significance and novelty.
Timelines
Recommended review timelines and communication expectations.
Training and Onboarding
New reviewers receive guidance on review structure, confidentiality, and ethical expectations. The editorial office can provide examples of strong reviews and help interpret journal standards.
We encourage reviewers to use reporting checklists and to highlight both strengths and limitations in the manuscript.
Support Topics
- Review structure and tone
- Ethics and conflict screening
- Data availability checks
- Assessing neuroimaging relevance
- Handling revisions
- Decision recommendations
Review Quality and Consistency
High quality reviews are clear, specific, and grounded in evidence. Provide direct references to sections that require revision and avoid vague statements.
When major concerns exist, explain why they affect validity or interpretation. This helps editors make fair decisions and helps authors respond effectively.
Best Practices
Reviewers should deliver balanced, respectful feedback that supports scientific improvement.
Focus on evidence based critique and actionable suggestions.
Do not share manuscripts or use content outside the review process.
Explain reasoning behind recommendations clearly.
Complete reviews within agreed deadlines or request extensions early.
Highlight strengths alongside concerns to support balanced feedback.
Need Help?
If you are unsure how to evaluate a manuscript or identify ethical concerns, contact the editorial office. We provide guidance and support for complex review situations.
Questions about deadlines or conflicts can be resolved quickly through the editorial office.
Support for Reviewers
Contact the editorial office for templates, resources, or review assistance.
Reviewer Guidelines Contact the Editorial OfficeEmail: [email protected] | Response within 24 business hours | Reviewer resource support available
