Year: 2026
Type: editorial
Abstract: One of the most enduring mantras in science is "publish or perish."However, it is not enough merely to publish; where one publishes matters.Employment, tenure, promotion, grant funding, and awards not only depend on the quantity of papers produced but also on the reputation of the journals in which the papers appear.High-profile journals (i.e., journals with a high impact factor) influence research visibility, commanding the attention of scientists across disciplines and attract interest from policymakers, journalists, and the public.Publication in such journals signals that a paper is significant, with the potential to shape future research.As a result, journal reputation has become a widely used proxy for research quality; shaping careers, funding, and research directions (McKiernan et al., 2019).However, important and influential research appears across a wide range of journals (Bartlett et al., 2024).Although simple and convenient, a journal's impact factor only reflects average citation patterns across its articles; it neither explains what makes an individual paper valuable nor reliably captures the many ways scientific work contributes to progress: novel ideas, theoretical breakthroughs, methodological or analytical advances, valuable datasets, or rigorous evidence.The challenge, therefore, is to give decision-makers a reliable shorthand for evaluating individual contributions on their own merits.To help shift attention from journal-level metrics to the merits of individual papers, eNeuro is adopting an innovative method for publicly sharing editorial evaluations, termed eNeuro Assessments.These assessments, consisting of short statements developed collaboratively by expert reviewers and editors, are designed to communicate how a manuscript was evaluated during peer review in a transparent and standardized manner.Using a common vocabulary adapted from the framework implemented at eLife (https:// elifesciences.org/about/elife-assessments), each assessment will summarize how a paper was evaluated along two dimensions commonly considered when judging scientific contributions: the significance of the findings and the quality of the data supporting them.Every manuscript published in eNeuro will soon be accompanied by an eNeuro Assessment, which will be displayed immediately below the abstract in lieu of our traditional author-written significance statements.How will the process work in practice?Upon submission to eNeuro, each manuscript is assigned to a Reviewing Editor whose expertise aligns with the scientific content of the paper.Expert reviewers, including both Associate Reviewers (Iordanova, 2026) and ad hoc reviewers, are then invited to evaluate the manuscript.In addition to traditional peerreview feedback, we will now ask the reviewers to explicitly comment on the significance of the findings and the quality of the data using the terms outlined in Table 1.The vocabulary uses positive language to recognize the diverse ways research advances science, valuing both broadly influential discoveries and studies with a more focused scope.Once all reviews have been submitted, the reviewers, Reviewing Editor, and an Advisory Board Member engage in a consultation process to discuss the manuscript and reconcile differences in opinion.Based on these discussions, a review synthesis is prepared that summarizes the major strengths, limitations, and recommendations arising from peer review.At the same time, the participants will collectively determine the editorial assessment, including which standardized descriptors best suit the work.Both the review synthesis and the provisional editorial assessment are communicated to the authors as part of the decision letter.Following revision and
Source: eNeuro
Author: Mihaela D. Iordanova
Institution: Concordia University
Language: English
Subfield: Library and Information Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $2,925
OpenAlex ID: W7223023591