SfN Journals: Two Paths, One Goal: Sharing Strong Science
While the journals will be evolving continually, and more differences are likely to appear over time, Marina Picciotto, editor-in-chief of JNeurosci, and Christophe Bernard, editor-in-chief of eNeuro, would like to outline the similarities and differences between the two journals. The full explanations are available on eneuro.org and jneurosci.org.
Structural and Functional
eNeuro is a fully open-access, online journal. eNeuro publishes articles upon acceptance and does not have formal volumes or issues. The second difference is functional: eNeuro can be more experimental in the review process and try new methods to increase the rapidity and transparency of review.
JNeurosci maintains a print edition that is published weekly, and the on-line issue parallels the print version. Articles in JNeurosci are available freely 6 months after publication, and authors can pay an additional fee to make their article open access immediately.
The review process at eNeuro is innovative and involves a double-blind procedure that maintains the anonymity of both the reviewers and the authors.
JNeurosci uses a tiered review process in which a Reviewing Editor invites the reviewers, evaluates the reviews, and makes a recommendation on whether or not the manuscript is acceptable for publication to one of the Senior Editors.
Editorial Board and Content
eNeuro has no constraints on the length of the paper or the number of figures, and is interested in publishing novel, but not necessarily mechanistic, findings that are of potential broad interest. As part of the process of differentiating the role of the two journals, the Brief Communication format, which focuses on important new observations that do not yet have a mechanistic underpinning, has been moved from JNeurosci to eNeuro.
In terms of content, JNeurosci focuses on mechanistic studies that provide in-depth understanding of novel findings in neuroscience. JNeurosci has no upper or lower limit for the number of figures, but the reviewers and editors are asked to identify the most significant findings of the manuscript and to evaluate how the findings will change thinking in the neuroscience field.