Journal of Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders

Instructions to Reviewers

1. Peer Review Workflow

All manuscripts submitted to Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders undergo an initial editorial assessment to ensure compliance with the journal's scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards. Submissions deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are subject to a double-blind peer review process. At least two independent external reviewers — selected based on subject-matter expertise and relevant academic qualifications — are invited to provide detailed, objective, and evidence-based evaluations.

The purpose of peer review is to assess the scientific quality, originality, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity of the submission, as well as to evaluate its structure, clarity, and referencing.

Final decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with Associate Editors, based on a thorough assessment of reviewer reports and overall editorial judgment.

Editorial Standards The editorial and publication processes of our journal are conducted in accordance with the guidelines of ICMJE, WAME, CSE, COPE, EASE, and NISO. Our journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

2. Key Questions for Reviewers

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are expected to consider the following questions:

  • Does the title reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Are the keywords appropriate?
  • Does the abstract accurately summarize the manuscript and can it be understood independently? Are there discrepancies between the abstract and the text?
  • Is the introduction based on relevant literature? Is the study purpose defined? Is there a hypothesis or research question?
  • Are informed consent and ethical committee approval clearly stated in the methods section for studies involving humans or animals?
  • Are the methods described in sufficient detail to allow independent reproducibility?
  • Does the discussion highlight the main findings, compare results with relevant literature, address limitations, and provide a clear conclusion?
  • Are references formatted correctly?
 
 

3. Accepting or Declining Invitations

Invitations to review manuscripts are sent via the online submission system. Reviewers can accept or decline through the provided link.

Response Deadline Reviewers must confirm availability within five (5) days. If no response is received, the review invitation may be reassigned. Reviewers should decline promptly if the topic falls outside their area of expertise or if their current workload prevents timely evaluation.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions Peer review supports editors in making informed decisions and helps authors improve their work. Reviewers are expected to contribute fairly and responsibly.
Promptness Reviewers should notify the editor promptly if they feel unqualified to review the manuscript or are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe.
Confidentiality Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shared with or discussed with others without explicit editor authorization.
Conflict of Interest Reviewers should avoid reviewing manuscripts where personal or professional relationships may bias their judgment. Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed and, if necessary, the review should be declined.
Objectivity & Constructive Feedback Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Feedback should be clear, specific, and constructive, focusing on the scientific content of the manuscript.
Acknowledgement of Sources Reviewers should identify relevant published literature that has not been cited by the authors, and note any substantial similarity or overlap with other works known to them.
AI Disclosure Statement Reviewers must disclose if AI-based tools are used during evaluation or report generation. The use of AI must not compromise the confidentiality, objectivity, or overall integrity of the peer review process.
License This text is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Readers may share, copy, adapt, and distribute this work for any purpose, provided proper attribution is given.