Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40049388›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience2025

Tips for quality publishing; lessons from the neuroscience editorial team.

Francesca Cirulli, Rachael Dangarembezi, Victor de Lafuente, Anthony J Hannan, Amanda C Kentner, Tatsuya Mima, Laurel Morris, Sarah J Spencer, Long-Jun Wu, Chen Zhang

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Francesca CirulliCenter for Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Rachael DangarembeziDepartment of Human Biology, Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Victor de LafuenteInstitute of Neurobiology, UNAM, Mexico.
Anthony J HannanFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia.
Amanda C KentnerSchool of Arts & Sciences, Health Psychology Program, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Tatsuya MimaThe Graduate School of Core Ethics and Frontier Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, Tojiin Kitamachi 56-1, Kita-ku, Kyoto 603-8577, Japan.
Laurel MorrisDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
Sarah J SpencerSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Vic. 3083, Australia. Electronic address: Sarah.Spencer@rmit.edu.au.
Long-Jun WuCenter for Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Chen ZhangSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China; College of Basic Medicine, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot 010110, China.

Funding

How microglia sense and regulate neuronal activity in the adult brainR35NS132326 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI Long-Jun Wu · 2023 to 2026
$3.2M
The protective role of environmental enrichment on placental mediators of hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis dysfunction in a prenatal inflammatory rat modelR15MH114035 · NIMH · MCPHS UNIVERSITY · PI KENTNER, AMANDA · 2018 to 2022
$788k
NIMH NIH HHS R15 MH114035NINDS NIH HHS R35 NS132326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In pursuit of excellence in scholarly publishing, the Neuroscience editorial team shares valuable insights that are essential for authors, reviewers, and the broader scientific community. Firstly, we emphasize that impactful research is built on rigorous study design and execution. Beyond fundamental methodological safeguards such as randomization and blinded analysis, we highlight the importance of thoughtfully selecting study models, with deliberate attention to biological variables like sex and gender, as well as appropriate nomenclature. Secondly, as technological innovations reshape research landscapes, we advocate for combining methodological rigor with suitable analytical tools to ensure robust data collection and transparent reporting. Thirdly, for manuscripts reaching the revision stage, we frame the response to reviewers as a strategic process that requires objectivity, diplomacy, and evidence-based rebuttals where necessary. Finally, we call for intentional prioritization of inclusivity and diversity across all stages of scientific inquiry - from laboratory collaborations to editorial decisions - and urge stakeholders to actively counteract implicit biases in manuscript evaluation and citation practices. By embedding these principles into the scientific workflow, we argue that the research community can foster not only greater rigor but also a more equitable and innovative scholarly ecosystem.

Indexed as

Editorial PoliciesNeurosciencesPeriodicals as TopicPublishingHumansPeer Review, Research

Identifiers

PMID40049388
PMCPMC12146853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.