All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Standard Editorial Processing and Peer-Review Policy

Manuscripts are submitted for evaluation at the online portal. The authors are provided with password to access and track their article progress. The manuscript ID is generated and sent to the corresponding author. This is followed by preliminary evaluation of the article where the scope of the manuscript and its conformity with the journal mandate is checked. It also involved checking of non-duplicity and originality. If the manuscript is found out of scope or the content is not comprehensible, then it is sent for re-submission provided significant modifications are made. After screening for suitability and determination of the communication type, the Editor-in-Chief sends the manuscript to the Managing Editor. A minimum of two potential and active Peer-Reviewers are identified and the manuscript is subjected for peer-review. Substantial time of about three weeks is allocated for completion of subject expert evaluation of the manuscript content. Based on the review comments, suggestions and recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the handling Editor and Reviewers arrive at a final decision (Accept/Re-review/Minor revision/Major revision/rejection) and the corresponding author is duly notified. Accepted articles are processed for generation of author proof followed by online web hoisting.

Types of decision include the following:

  • Accepted: Can be published as it is for the time being with minor typos or artifacts.
  • Accept with Minor Revision: The manuscript will have to be slightly revised following the reviewers' comments, but there will not be any additional round of review. The Action Editor and/or the Editor in Chief are responsible for verifying the implementation of modifications.
  • Revise and Resubmit: It is agreed that the topic is worth publishing, but the paper requires major revisions before it can actually be published.
  • Rejected: The paper does not contain any substantial contribution, or may be simply too difficult to comprehend. In any case, the same work should not be resubmitted without substantial improvisation.
Google Scholar citation report
Citations : 3962

Neuropsychiatry received 3962 citations as per google scholar report

Neuropsychiatry peer review process verified at publons
Recommended Conferences

antalya escort

izmir rus escort

bursa escort bayan

antalya escort bayanlar

izmir escort

porno indir

porno izle

beşiktaş escort

eskişehir escort

burdur escort

bartın escort


türk takipçi satın al

izmir escort

bursa escort

türk porno

escort bayan

yabanci porno

takipçi satın al

takipçi satın al

instagram takipçi satın al

instagram beğeni satın al

instagram takipçi satın al

takipçi satın alma


panel smm

takipçi satın al instagram

takipçi instagram satın al

eskişehir bayan escort

bursa escort bayan

smm gerçek panel

ataköy escort

izmit escort