학술지

Home > 학술활동 > 학술지

Neurointervention

Guideline for Reviewers

Neurointervention depends on reviewers to assist the editor in determining the quality and suitability of manuscripts for publication. The purpose of these guidelines is to identify areas that warrant reviewers’ attention and to summarize the rating for evaluation.

Ⅰ. Points of Main Concern in the Review Process
  • Please read the manuscript judiciously.
  • bvPlease be objective and fair in determining the value of the submitted paper. Please indicate concretely the flaws and shortcomings of the paper. If appropriate, please propose additional references.
  • If possible, please edit on the original manuscript.
  • Please be helpful and generous. Please do not use terms that insult the author(s).
  • When you suggest or offer a revision of a submitted paper, please remember that you should not lead the paper in the direction of your own style or idea regarding the paper.
  • Please summarize any shortcomings and suggest specific ways in which a paper may be revised. For this, use separate A4 paper.
  • Please send the evaluation results and evaluation form to the editorial office as soon as possible (usually within two weeks).
II. Checklist for Review

With regard to the above points considered, it should be able to answer to the following questions.

  • Is the title appropriate?
  • Is the abstract concrete and does it reflect entire content of the submitted paper?
  • Are plausible index words included?
  • Is the purpose of the paper clearly stated in the introduction?
  • Is the purpose of the research or observation is pertinent and currently valuable?
  • Are the methods clear and repeatable? Are they self-explanatory?
  • Are the research plans or methods appropriate for the purpose of the paper?
  • Are all numerals used correctly? Are additions correct?
  • Is the statistical analysis correct (where applicable)?
  • Does this paper represent work which, so far as you know, is original? Is the discussion section is sufficiently succinct and to the point?
  • If the discussion unduly emphasizes one aspect, please indicate the problems involved and suggest ways in which a better balance may be achieved.
  • Are the major conclusions justified?
  • To make the manuscript succinct and readable, please suggest ways in which part of the discussion section may be lengthened, shortened or deleted
  • Are the tables and diagrams suitable and essential to the paper?
  • Are the proposed references appropriate and contemporary? Are they cited sequentially? You may wish to suggest that important missing references are added, or inappropriate ones deleted.
  • Are all submitted figures necessary? Is their quality acceptable? Are they numbered in an appropriate order? Have they been well trimmed?

When the manuscript is fully reviewed, it is encouraged to provide comments for each of the questions stated above. Other comments and suggestions are welcome. It is helpful for the authors and us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

III. Rating for Evaluation

Submitted papers are evaluated mainly on the basis of two sets of criteria: one is for scientific merit and originality, and the other is clinical applicability and interest to readers. After assessing these two aspects, the reviewer finally determines, from among the following list, the appropriate rating category.

Rating
  • Rejected due to the serious nature of a number of problems
  • Rejected in spite of some merit
  • To be considered for publication
  • Very good, should be accepted
  • Excellent! An extremely valuable contribution to the improvement of neurointervention and related science

The editor-in-chief will accept papers rated 4 to 5, consider the possibility of accepting those rated 3, and reject papers rated 1 to 2.

TOP