Editorial Policies

01. Article processing charges

JBNc does not charge authors submission, publishing or any other fees.

 

02. Language

JBNc evaluates submissions primarily in English, but also in Portuguese, or Spanish. Accepted submissions will be published in the language they were originally received. Regardless of the text language, title, abstract and keywords must always be included in English. For all accepted manuscript minor suggestions can be suggested to the authors, but If needed a Grammar review by native speakers, the manuscript will be returned to the authors.

 

03. Peer review process

JBNc’s evaluation process consists of four stages, as described below:

  1. Initial check: The executive secretary will conduct an analysis of the submitted articles to ensure that they adhere to JBNc’s publication guidelines and assess the presence of any similarities with previously published works using the "Similarity Check" software. If problems are found the article will be returned to the authors for revision. Alternatively, if plagiarism or significant overlap is detected, the article will be immediately rejected. Please read JBNc’s ethics and correction policies before submitting your paper.
  2. Editorial evaluation: The articles that pass the initial check will be assigned to the executive editor who will assess its suitability to the journal's scope and editorial policy. Articles that align with the journal's scope, use adequate writing and present a substantial contribution to the Neurosurgery field will be forwarded to the peer review evaluation. Articles not passing this editorial evaluation will be sent a rejection letter describing the decision to decline its evaluation.
  3. Peer review: The executive editor may carry out this stage of the evaluation or decide to assign a handling editor selected from the scientific editor board, depending on load or specific article area requirements. The handling editor then invites two reviewers to perform individual evaluations assessing the validity of the research methodology and procedures presented in the article. This evaluation is performed using a double anonymized process in which the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other. If the reviewer's reports are conflicting, the article will be referred to an additional reviewer for further evaluation.
  4. Editorial decision: After receiving the reviewers reports the executive editor will assess the evaluations and decide whether the article should be returned to the authors for revision, or if it should be accepted or rejected. In the first case, the editor will communicate the necessary revisions to the authors along with submission requirements and a maximum due date. Revised submissions undergo the same path as new submissions with the difference that the editor will then decide whether or not it needs to be sent for another peer review round. Otherwise, the executive editor recommendation to accept or reject the article will be sent to the editor-in-chief who is then responsible for the final decision. The decision letter along with the editors and reviewers reports (in case of rejection), will be prepared and sent by the executive secretary.

Submission of revised articles: When submitting a revised version authors are required to include a letter disclosing all modifications made to the article in accordance to the reviewers suggestions or to justify otherwise. Also the submitted text must have all modifications emphasized preferably using the text editor tracking changes feature.

Submissions by editorial board members: Articles submitted by editors or editorial board members will undergo the same evaluation process using a double anonymized process. However, in these situations the executive editor will select editors to carry out the editorial and peer review evaluation in order to ensure impartiality and that there are no conflicts of interest with the author or research.

 

04. Post-acceptance and publication

After the final acceptance, the executive secretary will send the article for proofreading and copyediting and authors are required to review the final proof to ensure no errors are left in the text before publishing. After the authors approval and the executive secretary final technical review no further adjustments will be allowed. Attention: If problems are found after the publication authors are required to request them according to the journal policies on corrections.

 

05. Section policies

In addition to the specific section requirements below, each article must adhere to the recommended best practices as described in our reporting guideline policies and in the instructions for authors.

📑 Original articles

Original research studies, including clinical trials, observational studies, and laboratory research, providing original empirical evidence that generates new knowledge and understanding. These articles should provide a clear contribution to the Neurosurgery research body of knowledge.

📑 Reviews

Reviews are intended to provide an update on the current understanding of a specific subject in the Neurosurgery area relevant to clinical practice (disease or condition, diagnostic, treatment, etc.). JBNc will give preference to evaluating and publishing systematic reviews.

📑 Case reports

Case reports describe the diagnosis, treatment outcomes, and follow-up of patients with a rare or unusual condition or outcome. These reports provide insight into differential diagnosis, decision-making, and clinical management and are a valuable source of clinical information and education for neurosurgeons and other health professionals. JBNc will give preference to evaluating and publishing case report or case report series accompanied by a systematic review or cases depicting scientific novelties.

📝 Short notes

Short notes are brief reports of data from original research or unique first-time reports of clinical cases.

📷 Clinical images

JBNc encourages the submission of clinical images portraying interesting neurosurgical cases.

 

06. Special and Thematic Issues Policy

JBNC's policy for special and thematic issues, aligned with ICMJE recommendations, emphasizes editorial integrity and transparency. The journal editor holds complete responsibility and control over the content, including the selection of authors and peer reviewers. External guest editors may be appointed, but the journal editor oversees their work. All submissions will undergo JBNC's standard peer review process and the editor retains authority to reject submissions. Funding sources, conflicts of interest, and any other applicable statements are to be transparently disclosed. Advertising follows the same sponsorship and advertisement policies, and content from these issues will be clearly distinguishable from regular content. Editors are not allowed to accept personal remuneration from sponsors and must adhere to strict authorship and disclosure standards. This policy ensures the integrity and quality of JBNC's special and thematic issues.

 

07. Authorship policies

The following JBNc authorship policies were developed to ensure maximum compatibility with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations.

🦰 Authorship criteria and responsibilities

Authorship of submitted papers should be limited to people who have significantly contributed to the conception, planning, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) standards, the authors need to fulfill all the following criteria:

i. they must have made significant contributions to the paper's conception or design or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;

ii. they must have participated in the elaboration of the paper or the critical review of its intellectual content;

iii. they must have approved the final version to be published; and

iv. they must take responsibility for all aspects of the paper, ensuring that any questions relating to its accuracy or completeness are resolved.


🦰 Changes in authorship and dispute resolution

Authors must agree on the authors list before submission and all authors must adhere to the authorship policy.

The editor will consider requests to add, remove, or change the order of authors on a case-by-case basis. Any request for changes to the author's list will require unanimous agreement from all authors (original authors, new authors, or removed authors). The request must be sent to the editorial office via e-mail (copying all involved authors), along with a written explanation.

Any eventual authorship disputes will be handled using the COPE Guidelines on the subject.


🦰 Author contributions

Authors are required to explicitly detail their respective contributions to the work using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) vocabulary. This includes specifying roles such as conceptualization, methodology, writing, data collection, analysis, and supervision, among others. If the journal editors detect potential authorship violations, such as an incomplete author list or inclusion of individuals who did not contribute significantly to the work, they will contact the authors for clarification. Persistent issues or misconduct in authorship, as identified by COPE guidelines, may result in the removal of the paper from the editorial process. Our aim is to ensure transparency and accountability in authorship, in line with ethical publishing standards.


🤝 Acknowledgements

Individuals that contributed but do not meet the journal authorship criteria should be included in the acknowledgments section only if they have given their specific written consent. Authors are advised to retain this consent in case the journal requires it in the future.


💻 Use AI-assisted technologies

For journal submissions, authors must disclose if they used AI-assisted technologies like Large Language Models or image creators. The use of AI should be detailed in the cover letter and in the relevant sections of the submitted work, such as acknowledgments for writing assistance or methods for data analysis or figure generation. AI technologies, like ChatGPT, should not be credited as authors, given their inability to be accountable for the work's accuracy and originality. Authors are responsible for ensuring the correctness and integrity of AI-generated content, including preventing plagiarism and ensuring proper attribution and citations for all material, including AI-produced text and images.

 

08. Publication ethics

The Brazilian Journal of Neurosurgery (JBNc) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its publication process. Our ethics statement, which defines competing interests and delineates the responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers, ensures that our practices are aligned with ethical conduct and professional excellence. This statement draws its orientation and principles from authoritative sources in the field of publication ethics, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

🥇 Competing Interests

Competing interests, also known as conflicts of interest, occur when personal, financial, or professional considerations may affect or appear to affect the objectivity, integrity, or interpretation of scholarly work. These interests can be actual, potential, or perceived and encompass both financial and non-financial aspects:

  • Financial Competing Interests include any monetary relationships or holdings that may influence the research or its interpretation. Examples are employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
  • Non-Financial Competing Interests involve personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passions. These might include personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and strong beliefs in specific topics that may bias one's work.

The importance of disclosing these interests lies in maintaining transparency and trust in the scientific process. They must be declared to ensure that readers, reviewers, and editors are aware of any factors that could influence the content or evaluation of the work published.


👉 Authors competing interests

Authors must disclose any financial relationships or personal connections that could be viewed as potential sources of bias related to the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Failure to disclose competing interests can result in the rejection of a manuscript. Furthermore, authors are encouraged to also follow any specific requirement imposed by each funding agency.

Specific instructions on how to provide the financial support information must follow the submission and instruction for authors.

👉 Referees competing interests

Referees are required to declare any potential competing interests that could affect their objectivity in reviewing a manuscript. This includes any personal or professional relationship with the authors, or any direct involvement with the manuscript. If a significant conflict exists, referees should recuse themselves from the review process.

👉 Editors competing interests

Editors at JBNc must not be involved in editorial decisions about papers in which they have competing interests. Editors should recuse themselves from handling a submission if they have any personal or financial connections to the manuscript, authors, or institutions involved.

👉 External editors competing interests

External editors, guest editors, and members of the editorial board must adhere to the same standards as the journal's editors. They should disclose any competing interests before engaging in any editorial duties and should recuse themselves from any decisions where such conflicts exist.

In all cases, transparency is key. Disclosing competing interests allows for appropriate handling of the manuscript and maintains the integrity of the scientific record.

Cases of undisclosed conflicts of interest in a submitted manuscript will be addressed by the journal in accordance with the COPE guidelines. This approach ensures that such issues are handled with the utmost integrity and align with the best practices in ethical publishing.

  • COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.6 ©2021 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

📑 Responsibilities

This section outlines the essential duties and expectations for each party involved in the process of manuscript submission, review, and publication. Adherence to these guidelines ensures the quality, credibility, and integrity of our scholarly work.

👉 Editor responsibilities

  • Ensure the proper management of conflicts of interest (by editors, authors, or reviewers), guaranteeing transparency and fairness.
  • Oversee the communication between all parties in the editorial process, ensuring efficient and timely handling of manuscripts.
  • Make the final editorial decisions on submitted manuscripts, considering the reviewers' recommendations but retaining ultimate authority.
  • Provide unbiased and fair consideration of all manuscripts, evaluating them solely on their merits without discrimination based on race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the peer-review process, ensuring no information about the manuscript is disclosed outside the editorial process.
  • Investigate and document any complaints arising during the editorial process, offering all involved parties a fair opportunity to respond.

👉 Author responsibilities

  • Adhere to the journal's editorial policies and instructions for authors when preparing and submitting manuscripts.
  • Uphold academic integrity, avoiding fraudulent data, fabrication, or plagiarism.
  • Ensure appropriate and accurate authorship, including only those individuals who have made significant contributions.
  • Conduct research ethically, treating animal or human subjects involved in the research appropriately and obtaining necessary Ethics Committee approval.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest, funding sources, and relevant information that might influence the manuscript's evaluation.
  • Confirm the originality of the manuscript, its adherence to the journal's policies, its unpublished status, and that it is not under consideration elsewhere.
  • Respond promptly to editor or reviewer queries and cooperate in correcting errors, publishing errata, or withdrawing the manuscript when necessary.

👉 Reviewer responsibilities

  • Disclose any conflicts of interest and abstain from reviewing any manuscripts where a conflict exists.
  • Provide clear, constructive, and detailed feedback to authors, aiding in manuscript improvement and publication prospects.
  • Complete reviews within the specified timeframe and notify the editor if unable to meet deadlines.
  • Alert editors to any ethical concerns detected during review, such as ethical treatment violations or significant similarities to published works.
  • Maintain confidentiality in the peer-review process and not exploit any information obtained for personal benefit.

 

09. Previous or duplicate publication

📑📑 Duplicate publication

It is unethical to simultaneously submit the same manuscript to multiple journals or to submit previously published manuscripts describing essentially the same research whether total, partial, or an altered copy.

If duplicate content is discovered during the peer-review process, or after publication, the journal will follow the corresponding COPE flowchart:

  • COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Redundant (duplicate) publication in a published article — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.13 ©2021 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
  • COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.12 ©2021 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

After checking for the extent and nature of the overlap, additional clarification might be requested by reaching out to the authors, journal or institution as required, and appropriate action will be taken as per our Corrections and retractions policy.


👍 Accepted previous publication

The Brazilian Journal of Neurosurgery (JBNc) recognizes the importance of disseminating scientific knowledge in various forms and platforms. In line with this, we have specific policies regarding the submission of works that have been previously published in certain formats:

Conference proceedings

JBNc accepts submissions of works previously presented and published in conference proceedings. However, the submitted manuscript must include significant enhancements or additional insights beyond the original conference paper. Authors should provide details of the conference presentation and how the current submission differs from it.

Theses or dissertations

Manuscripts derived from academic theses or dissertations are eligible for submission. The submitted work should be a refined and concise version of the original thesis or dissertation, highlighting the most significant and novel aspects of the research. Authors are required to mention the original thesis or dissertation in their submission.

Preprint servers

JBNc accepts submissions of manuscripts that have been previously made available on preprint servers. Authors are required to disclose the preprint server details at the time of submission. It is important to note that the peer-review process will assess the manuscript on its merits, independent of the preprint version. While significant advancements or novel contributions since the preprint version are welcome, they are not a mandatory requirement for submission. Our primary focus is to ensure the scientific rigor and quality of the published work.

 

10. Human and animal rights

Research with human beings

All research conducted on human beings, including individuals, samples, or data, must adhere to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki at an international level or comply with the current decision of the Brazilian National Health Council for research conducted within the country (Resolution No. 466 of December 12, 2012).


Ethical approval

All articles submitted to the Brazilian Journal of Neurosurgery (JBNc) are required to provide evidence of ethical compliance. This includes obtaining approval (or an official waiver) from the institution’s ethics committee. The submitted documentation should clearly state the name of the ethics committee and include the reference numbers pertaining to the approval or waiver. For non-interventional studies where ethical approval is not required, or in cases where a waiver has been granted by an ethics committee, authors must provide a waiver document or an explicit statement to this effect.

Additionally, it is mandatory for authors to have obtained informed consent from all participants involved in the study. This consent should be acknowledged in the manuscript. In situations where the journal's editorial staff requests copies of the ethical approval, waiver documents, or informed consent forms, authors are expected to provide these promptly.

Authors must follow the submission and instruction for authors for information on how to send or acknowledge this information in the manuscript.


Clinical trials

The Brazilian Journal of Neurosurgery (JBNc) strictly follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, which mandate the registration of all clinical trials in a public trial registry. This registration must occur before or at the time of the first patient enrollment and is a prerequisite for the submission and publication of trials in our journal, irrespective of the country of origin. We advise authors to refer to the World Health Organization's registry network for locating a suitable registry. For more information on these requirements, please visit the ICMJE recommendations at ICMJE Clinical Trial Registration.

Authors must follow the submission and instruction for authors for information on how to include the registration number in their submission.


Research with animals

Experiments involving animals must be conducted in accordance with the standards approved by the Ethical and Animal Welfare Committee of the institution where the study was developed, and the authors must present the submission and approval protocol number. For comprehensive reporting of the study, it is recommended to adhere to the ARRIVE Guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments).

 

11. Reporting guidelines

Authors are strongly encouraged to adhere to the EQUATOR Network's guidelines, accessible at EQUATOR Network, as they provide essential statements and checklists designed to improve the quality of research reporting. For convenience, we have listed the most frequently used reporting standards for different study types, along with their respective websites where authors can find relevant checklists and workflow diagram templates:

Authors must follow the submission and instruction for authors for information on specific requirements pertaining reporting guidelines.

 

12. Data sharing policies

JBNc currently requires authors to include a concise data availability statement in their submissions, detailing whether their research data is publicly accessible. If available, this statement should specify the repository used, include a full citation of the data, and provide a direct link (preferably a DOI) to the dataset. In cases where data is not publicly available, authors must clearly state the reasons, such as privacy concerns, legal restrictions, or data size. This requirement ensures transparency in research and facilitates data verification and reuse.

As JBNc navigates the evolving landscape of data sharing, our current stance does not mandate data deposition but encourages best practices in data transparency and reproducibility.

  • Recommended Repositories: While data deposit is not compulsory, we recommend authors consider public repositories for their data, software, and code. Discipline-specific repositories are preferable; however, general repositories like Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo, and Open Science Framework are also suitable.
  • Repository Selection: Authors have the flexibility to choose repositories that best fit their field’s standards and requirements. Resources such as FAIRsharing and Re3Data can guide authors in selecting appropriate repositories.
  • Data Submission: Although not mandatory, authors are encouraged to deposit data as part of their research dissemination process. This fosters a culture of openness and aids in the validation and replication of research findings.
  • Licensing and Access: If authors opt to deposit data, open licenses are recommended to ensure accessibility and reuse of the data. However, sensitivity of human-derived data should be considered, and where necessary, controlled access via Data Usage Agreements may be applied.
  • Long-term Preservation: For authors choosing to deposit data, it's advisable to ensure the long-term preservation and accessibility of their datasets.

This guidance reflects JBNc’s commitment to promoting data transparency in research, while recognizing the need for flexibility and further study in this area.

 

13. Misconduct and corrections policies

JBNC is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity in scholarly publishing by committing to the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), thus striving to avoid any kind of misconduct, including but not limited to:

  • Data Fabrication: The creation of false data or results and recording or reporting them in the research.
  • Data Falsification: Manipulating research data with the intent of giving a false impression. This includes manipulating images to misrepresent findings.
  • Failure to Disclose Relationships and Activities: Not revealing conflicts of interest that could affect interpretations or conclusions of the research.
  • Plagiarism: Using someone else's work, ideas, or expressions without appropriate acknowledgment.

All submissions are screened for similarity using the software SIMILARITY CHECK. If significant overlap is identified (except when properly cited) the authors will be contacted to provide clarification. If the authors fail to provide a convincing explanation the submission will be withdrawn.

During the peer review process, editors and reviewers are instructed to communicate any suspected instances of plagiarism or any other type of misconduct, providing relevant evidence to support their concerns.

Similarly JBNc strongly encourages readers to report any errors or suspected misconduct, also providing relevant evidence to support their concerns.

Should allegations of suspected misconduct be made, either during the evaluation or after publication, the journal will assign an editor or editorial board member to proceed with the appropriate investigations, ensuring the following policies are met:

  • Prompt correction of errors: If errors in a published article are identified by authors, readers, or the editorial team, immediate action is taken. Stakeholders are encouraged to report errors to the editorial office without delay. An editor will review the reported issue, and a correction notice detailing the error and its impact on the article will be published in the next issue, linked to the original article.
  • Retraction of articles: Articles may be retracted when they contain significant inaccuracies, ethical breaches, or instances of plagiarism or other misconduct. The editor will evaluate such cases and publish a retraction notice, which will explain the reasons for retraction and be linked to the original article. Retracted articles will remain accessible online, marked as “retracted,” and their PDF versions will be watermarked.
  • Publishing expressions of concern: In situations where the validity of an article is in question but a clear conclusion cannot yet be reached, JBNC may publish an expression of concern. This is a formal notice to readers indicating that there is a potentially significant issue with the article, and it is under investigation.
  • Adherence to ethical guidelines: Our actions will adhere to the COPE guidelines on correction and retraction, and follow the COPE flowcharts to ensure ethical handling of all actual or suspected issues. This includes transparent documentation of all changes to the publication record and maintaining the integrity of the original articles’ DOIs.

Through these policies, JBNC aims to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of its published content, fostering a responsible and ethical scholarly environment.

 

JBNC  Brazilian Journal of Neurosurgery

  •   ISSN (print version): 0103-5118
  •   e-ISSN (online version): 2446-6786

Contact

Social Media

   

ABNc  Academia Brasileira de Neurocirurgia

  •   Rua da Quitanda 159 – 10º andar - Centro - CEP 20091-005 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ
  •   +55 21 2233.0323
  •    abnc@abnc.org.br

Sponsor

  • Brain4Care
  • Hospital INC
  • Strattner