Editorial Policies
Peer Review Process
Peer review will be used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published in the SLJoN. Peer review helps to validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated in a scientific manner.
Independent reviewers in the relevant area of expertise will assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help Editorial Board determine whether a manuscript merits publication in the SLJoN.
When a manuscript is submitted to the journal, the Joint Editors will assess it to see if it meets the focus and scope of the SLJoN and the criteria for submission. If it does, potential reviewers within the field of research will be selected to review the manuscript and make recommendations. The SLJoN uses a double-blind peer-review policy, where the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Each manuscript will be independently reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers. The reviewers’ decisions will be considered by the Editorial Board and conveyed to the authors along with suggested revisions. All reviewed manuscripts will be categorized as, accepted, accepted with major revisions, accepted with minor revisions and rejected. Where necessary, authors will be requested to make revisions. The revised manuscript will be forwarded to the same reviewers for their final decision. Based on the final recommendation of the reviewers, the Editorial Board will decide on the suitability of the manuscript for publication.
The average time taken for completion of review is three months, and SLJoN currently publish a peer-reviewed manuscript within 3-9 months of receipt. Time-frame given for authors to make changes to the manuscript after peer review process is 6 weeks, and the expected time from acceptance to publication will be within 3 months from the time of return of the amended manuscript.
Since this process results in delay in dissemination of new knowledge, SLJoN will publish the articles as an when they are accepted as an online version.
Section Policies
Editorial
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Original Articles
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Trainees' Corner
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Brief Reports
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Case Reports
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Picture Stories
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Review articles/Leading article
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Points of View
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Invited Article
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Neurology and Art
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Correspondence
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Neurology Quiz
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Humanities in Neurology
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Neurology Quiz Answers
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Letters to the Editor
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Snippets on Recent Updates in Neurology
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed
Perspectives, and miscellaneous submissions
- Open Submissions
- Indexed
- Peer Reviewed