Review for JNRT
Lend your expertise to peer review, help authors strengthen their work, and help editors reach sound, fair decisions.
What this means for authors
Your manuscript is assessed by at least two independent experts in the relevant area of neurology, matched by subject expertise and screened for conflicts of interest, and kept strictly confidential. Reviews are judged on the science and returned as structured, constructive reports. A named editor weighs the reviews and signs the decision.
What reviewing for JNRT involves
The same standard applies to everyone who shapes the journal: rigour, transparency and research ethics first.
Assess the science
Judge originality, methodology, analysis and clarity against the evidence, not opinion.
Be timely and constructive
Return a structured, actionable report that gives authors a clear path to improve.
Flag concerns
Raise any ethical, data or integrity concerns, and declare conflicts of interest.
Keep it confidential
Treat every manuscript as confidential and never use unpublished material.
What a JNRT review looks like
A strong review is specific, evidence-based and courteous. We ask reviewers to judge the significance and originality of the work, the soundness of the methods and statistics, the validity of the conclusions, and the clarity of reporting; to support each point with reasons an author can act on; to raise any ethical, data or integrity concern; and to close with a clear, justified recommendation. Reviews advise the editor; they are not decisions in themselves.
Recognition that counts
Academic recognition and access, not payment.
Verified recognition
Your review activity can be recorded and recognised through your ORCID iD.
Early sight of research
Read new findings in your field before they are published.
Sharpen your own work
Reviewing strengthens your own methodology, writing and critical eye.
A record of service
A documented contribution to your discipline and the integrity of its literature.
A manageable commitment
Reviewing for JNRT is designed to fit a working academic's schedule: you are invited to review a manuscript in your specialty from time to time, with a typical review window of about two to three weeks, in line with our aim of a first decision in about three weeks. You are never asked to assess work outside your area.
Appointed by invitation or vetted application
JNRT does not run open self-registration. Every reviewer is checked for subject expertise, publication record and conflicts of interest before any manuscript is assigned.
How we appoint
We invite reviewers matched to each manuscript by subject expertise, and screen every reviewer for a clean conflict-of-interest profile before assignment. Reviews advise a named editor, who weighs them and signs the decision.
- A current CV and your ORCID iD
- Your areas of expertise and 4 to 6 keywords
- A note on any prior peer-review experience
Send your CV, ORCID iD and a short note on your areas of expertise to info@openaccesspub.org. We review every application for fit before appointing, so this is a request to be considered, not an automatic listing.
Interested in an editorial role instead? See the For Editors page.
Everything you need to do the job well
Questions from prospective reviewers
Who can apply to review?
Is appointment automatic?
What should I submit?
Are reviewers paid?
How are manuscripts assigned?
How are conflicts of interest handled?
What peer-review model is used?
Is the manuscript confidential?
Can my review activity be recognised through ORCID?
What if I want to review but not join the editorial board?
Ready to contribute to JNRT?
Send your CV and ORCID and tell us your area of expertise. We review every application for fit before appointing, with Single-blind (double-blind on request) peer review and a first decision in about three weeks.