Guide for Reviewers

Revised on 19 March 2019 

This guide for reviewers contains information about basic considerations that should be applied when reviewing a manuscript that has been submitted to Journal of Oriental Neuropsychiatry(JON), and about the editorial standards of the journal. Other relevant information about the journal's aims and scope and editorial policies can be found at ‘Aims and Scope, Instruction to Authors’.

Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts. Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected. They should also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.

Publication of research articles by JON is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors. The reviewers may also be asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the article to be. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers, unless they are out of scope or below the interest threshold of JON, or if the presentation or written English is of an unacceptably low standard.

All papers submitted to JON are first reviewed by the editorial team and the articles are usually sent to two reviewers. The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many case rejection may occur in spite of favorable reviews because of editorial policy or lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine priorities for publication and also to determine the style and if necessary request shortening of material accepted for publication.