At Neurosurgical Advances, we are committed to maintaining the highest quality of published research through a rigorous and fair peer review process. Our peer review process is designed to ensure the integrity, validity, and quality of the manuscripts we publish.

1. Initial Submission and Screening

• Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts via the journal’s online submission system.
• Editorial Screening: The editor-in-chief or designated editorial staff performs an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and meets basic quality and formatting standards. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they do not meet these criteria.
• Plagiarism Check: The manuscript is checked for plagiarism using industry-standard software to ensure originality.

2. Assignment to Associate Editor

• Once the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to an associate editor who has expertise in the relevant field of neurosurgery.
• The associate editor evaluates the manuscript and decides whether it is suitable for peer review or requires additional revisions before proceeding.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

• Reviewer Selection: The associate editor selects two or more expert reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their knowledge, reputation in the field, and previous experience in reviewing.
• Confidentiality: The peer review process is double-blind, meaning that both the reviewers' and authors' identities are kept confidential to ensure an unbiased review process.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be replaced.

4. Review Process

• Review Duration: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 2-4 weeks, though extensions may be granted upon request.
• Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, scientific rigor, clarity, relevance, and potential impact on the field of neurosurgery. Reviewers are also asked to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
• Reviewer Reports: Reviewers submit detailed reports that include comments on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, suggestions for improvement, and recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection.

5. Editorial Decision

• Review Outcome: Once all reviewer reports are received, the associate editor compiles the feedback and makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief based on the reviewers' comments.
• Editorial Decision: The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript. Decisions are communicated to the authors along with the reviewer feedback.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

• Minor/Major Revisions: If revisions are requested, the authors are given a deadline to resubmit the revised manuscript along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments.
• Second Review: Depending on the extent of revisions, the manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for additional evaluation.

7. Acceptance and Publication

• Once the manuscript is accepted, it moves into the production phase, where it undergoes copyediting, formatting, and proofing.
• Authors will receive proofs for final approval before publication.
• The accepted manuscript is published online in the next available issue of Neurosurgical Advances as an open-access article.