Journal of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Disorders is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to Journal of Neurodegenerative diseases and disorders for publication as original articles at test that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. The authors acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. In the same manner, Journal of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Disorders is committed to objective and fair single-blind peer-review of the submitted for publication works and to prevent any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. Any departures from the above-defined rules should be reported directly to the Editor-in-Chief, who is unequivocally committed to providing swift resolutions to any of such a type of problems. Further to the above, Journal of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Disorders provides a platform for the open public discussion of the journal contents. To secure accountability and to encourage sincere professional inputs without incivilities the system is set up to require registration and logging for recording of inputs. Some of the website contents will be available without logging but no peer review comments can be posted on the website without the disclosure of the reviewer identity to the journal editors. The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for our journal. It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.