About the Journal

Focus and Scope

FOCUS

In science it is frequent to repeat the same experiment, test or observation once and again in the same direction, in order to pursue and achieve the expected results. However, in JONNPR the orientation might be different, sharing the way and creating science in a more rapid and transparent form. In this procedure the final result will by no means be biased.

SCOPE

Most investigators are conditioned to avoid outlining their negative results, trying to obtain and outstand their positive results or to repeat several times the same observation or experience, in order to achieve an expected goal, without accepting the null hypothesis. How many research groups are working in the same molecule for cell or cancer generation? How many groups might be testing the best form of extracting or purifying a plant or genetic material by different techniques? How many might be developing algorithms to predict an environmental behavior? How many might be observing which habits are associated with a greater rate of obesity in schools of different countries or communities? The need to publish non positive, neutral or non significant results is worldwide and mandatory, in order to advance in knowledge in a correct, quick and transparent way, gaining innovation and science in the process.

Peer Review Process

This journal uses the Double Blind Peer Review system in which the anonymity of authors and reviewers is preserved during the process. To ensure anonymity in the review process, neither authors, reviewers nor research centres should be identified in the manuscript.

All the works received are submitted for evaluation, first by the Editorial Committee and, if applicable, by external reviewers. Whenever, in the review process "by pairs ", it is suggested to make changes to the articles, the authors must submit a detailed explanation of the modifications made together with the new version of the article.

In addition to this explanation, to expedite the work of the reviewers, it is advisable to identify the modified texts: for example, in different color or over-illuminating the text. It is suggested that you use the text processors ' Change control tool.

The Reviewers must perform the evaluation according to the following:

CHECKLIST (GUIDE FOR REVIEWERS) JONNPR

REVIEWER IDENTIFICATION

Reviewer name …………………………….……………………………………..

Manuscript: (Abbreviated title)………………….…………………………………….

Paper code: ……………………………………………………………………

Conflicts of interest …………………………..……………………………….……

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Date……………………………………………….…………………………………..

		FINAL RECOMMENDATION
		PUBLISHABLE The manuscript may be accepted
		RE-EVALUATE The authors should be asked to make corrections
		NON-PUBLISHABLE The article should be rejected

ADAPTATION TO GUIDELINES

Please indicate the article type that you propose for this paper if it is published:

Original Short original Review

Special article Letter to the editor Editorial

Clinical Cases

Originals, short originals, and reviews:

Body of the article: introduction, method, results, discussion
Abstract: objectives, method, results, conclusions

Letters to the editor: free text.
Clinical cases: introduction, case description, discussion

Depending on the article type, it may not be necessary to evaluate all included items.

TITLE It must adequately describe the content of the paper and the design in a single phrase (in general, no more than 15 words). Acronyms, codes, and symbols that are not commonly used should be avoided.		YES	NO	Not applicable
1.	Does it have 15 or fewer words?
2.	Is it written in a single phrase that is not broken up by punctuation?
3.	Is it written in a positive tone?
4.	Is the type of study design mentioned in the title?
5	Does it contain main descriptors that allow for visibility?
6.	Is the title adapted to the content of the article?
If it should be changed, your proposal:

ABSTRACT Should be structured by: objective, method, results and conclusions. Should be characterised by: 1) can act as a substitute for the text if the text is not available; 2) describes the same essential objectives and results as the manuscript; 3) does not include data not mentioned in the text; 4) avoid abbreviations.		YES	NO	Not applicable
7.	Do the objective and conclusions coincide with those in the body of the paper?
8.	In the methods section, are the population, environment, design, and main variables specified?
9.	Is there coherence among the objectives, results and conclusions?
10.	Are there any acronyms or abbreviations?

KEY WORDS

The submission must include five to eight key words that identify the content of the paper for inclusion in indexes and databases.

If possible, they should match the terms in the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) proposed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, available at: http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/mesh.

YES

Not applicable

11. Do the authors present 5 to 8 words that are closely related to the subject of the paper and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) descriptors?

INTRODUCTION In 3 or 4 paragraphs, the introduction should present the subject of the study, highlight what is known about the subject to date, describe the absence of knowledge that justifies the study and, in the last paragraph, set forth the study objectives. The introduction must cite relevant references justifying the purposes of the study.		YES	NO	Not applicable
1.	Does the introduction specify the interest and scientific history of the problem to be investigated?
2.	Do the objectives respond to the interest of the research project?
3.	Are the objectives precise, measurable, relevant and novel?
4.	Are the objectives defined at the end of the introduction?
5	Are the objectives defined clearly in the infinitive verb form?
6.	Is the introduction written in the present tense?

METHOD This section seeks for the study to be reproducible by another researcher. It must describe precisely and in order: the study design, the environment (time and place), the population under consideration and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the sample size, the techniques employed, the variables used, the statistical analysis, and the ethical considerations. Reviews must describe the bibliographic search that was performed and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for papers.		YES	NO	Not applicable
DESIGN
1.	Is the design type indicated?
2.	Is the design suited to the objective?
3.	Are the proposed interventions, processes and/or techniques explained clearly? Is it reproducible?
4.	Are the environment and duration described?
	POPULATION
5.	Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria described adequately?
6.	Does the paper describe why the study focuses on a specific population?
7.	Does the paper describe the determination of the sample size?
8.	Does it describe the assignment and masking method?
	VARIABLES
9.	Are the variables suited to the objectives?
10.	Are sources of information clearly identified?
	STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
11.	Is the statistical analysis described and is it appropriate?
12.	Does the paper describe expected losses, extreme values, and how they were treated?
13.	Are possible confounding variables described?
14.	Does the paper indicate the statistical program that was used?
	GENERAL ASPECTS
15	Are ethical principles respected?
16	Is it written in the past tense?

RESULTS

In approximately 6 paragraphs, this section should describe, in a coherent and orderly fashion, the findings obtained for the study objectives, detailing both positive and negative findings.

The information to be presented should be appropriately selected, with an emphasis on important observations and avoiding presentation of superfluous or unnecessary information.

The data may be mentioned either in the text or in tables or figures, without repetition.

YES

Not applicable

Are the results (primary and secondary) presented in an objective, descriptive and orderly fashion?

Are results presented for all measured variables?

Do the results respond to the established objectives?

Are the data presented appropriately:

Value of the estimator

Estimation of precision (standard error, confidence interval)

Significance

Statistical test?

Are the tables and figures necessary and/or sufficient?

Is there a table or text describing the population?

Are the tables and figures self-explanatory and suited to the results?

Is duplication of data avoided in figures, tables and/or text?

Is the past tense used?

DISCUSSION

The discussion must rigorously interpret the results and highlight novel and relevant aspects of the study and its strengths in 4 sections (8-10 paragraphs): 1) highlight the results of the research project that respond to the study’s primary objective; 2) evaluate the results in comparison with other work; 3) discuss the limitations of the work and possible repercussions on the interpretation of the results; and 4) suggest implications of the work for research and for practice when pertinent.

Finally, it must explain the study conclusions, which should respond to the established objectives.

YES

Not applicable

Does this section discuss results that respond to the primary objective?

Are the results themselves compared to other data available in the references?

Are the results interpreted correctly in terms of their significance?

Does this section include comments that do not stem from the study?

Does it highlight relevant novel aspects of the study, as well as its strengths?

Does it describe the limitations, inconsistencies in methodology, and anomalous or unexpected results?

Does it discuss practical application of the results?

Does it suggest new proposals for research?

Do the final conclusions respond to the study objectives and are they based on the results that were obtained?

10.

Does it use the present tense for results cited from other researchers and the past tense for results obtained in this project?

REFERENCES		YES	NO	Not applicable
1.	Are references distributed correctly between the introduction and the discussion? Approximately 60% in the introduction (recommended)
2.	Is it updated? Suggested: 60-70% less than 5 years ago, 15-25% from 5-10 years ago, less than 10% more than 10 years ago
3.	Do all citations comply with Vancouver Style and are they written correctly?
4.	Do the references preferably come from “Original articles”?
5.	Are the key words found in the titles of the references?
6.	Does the reviewer know of any relevant citation that is not included? Please cite it:

FINAL GENERAL EVALUATION		YES	NO	Not applicable
	Originality of the paper and contribution to scientific literature
	The article falls within the scope of the journal
	Appropriate writing style

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Frecuency and dates of publication

The JONNPR will publish continuously, without monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, or quarterly issues. In this way the magazine will be more dynamic and will publish as the articles are accepted and edited. (Update November 2024)

Editorial Process

Start: The editorial process begins when the manuscript is received in electronic format on the platform https://www.jonnpr.com. At this time a reference number is assigned for identification; the manuscript will keep this number through the entire process. The author may consult the status of the article at any time to follow the editorial process.

Review of formal requirements: The editorial coordinator completes a preliminary evaluation of the received work to ensure that it meets the formal requirements for editing and issues a report that is sent as an additional file along with the article to the Editor in Chief, editors and reviewers. This formal review will be made available on the platform.

Assignment of editors: Manuscripts that pass this initial screening will be sent to the journal’s Editorial Board which shall, if applicable, assign an editor to evaluate the manuscript.

Initial editor's review: The editor completes a detailed evaluation and, depending on such, may recommend direct acceptance, changes or rejection, or submit the manuscript for peer review. For these purposes, the editor shall assign two external reviewers. This process shall take no more than 12 business days.

Peer review. Manuscripts submitted to JONNPR that the editor has decided to send for peer review shall be reviewed anonymously by independent experts. The authors’ names, cities or towns, or the centres where they have completed the work shall appear only on the first title page, which shall not be sent to the reviewers in order to ensure anonymity in the review.

The reviewers shall perform the review, evaluating the points from the check-list available at the journal’s website, and issue a report. This first review shall be completed in no more than 15 days.

Editorial decision (publishable, re-evaluate or non-publishable). With the reports from both reviewers, the editor will prepare a final decision as to whether it is publishable, non-publishable or whether it needs to be re-evaluated. This decision shall always be accompanied by comments from the reviewers and from the editor, if applicable. The editor's final decision is sent simultaneously to the reviewers and authors by email from the platform.

In cases when elements of the manuscript could be improved, the re-evaluate decision is submitted for the authors to consider whether these elements may be corrected in a reviewed version of the manuscript. As a general rule, this process shall involve a maximum of two reviews.

Changes to the article: Whenever the editor suggests making changes to the article, the authors must submit the new version via the Web platform within no more than 30 calendar days, with a report detailing the changes made, whether suggested by the editor or the reviewers. If the new version is not received within 30 days, the editorial coordinator will inform the author that the work will be removed from the system.

This second version may be sent back to the reviewers, who will evaluate it within 10 days.

Second review: If any new corrections need to be made, the manuscript shall be sent to the authors, who will answer within 10 days. The manuscript will then be sent to the reviewers so they may issue comments within 10 days.

No manuscript will be accepted until all corrections have been made or until the authors have duly justified themselves.

Final decision: The final decision on acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is the result of an evaluation process to which the Editor in Chief, the editors, and the reviewers all contribute. They will issue the final resolution within 3 days.

The total time for the editorial process until manuscript approval shall be a maximum of 90 days.

The Editorial Committee reserves the right to reject the articles that it does not consider suitable and to introduce stylistic changes and/or other changes to facilitate clarity or comprehension, including changes to the title and abstract, unless they lead to changes in intellectual content. All changes that are made shall be communicated to the author, who must agree to the final version of the manuscript.

Proofs: Finally, the author responsible for correspondence will receive a proof of the edited manuscript for correction. The proof shall be returned to the publisher within 72 hours of receipt. These proofs allow the authors to detect typing, spelling and other errors.

Corrections that affect the content or change the original sense of the article shall not be accepted.

The Editorial Committee reserves the right to admit or reject corrections made by the author in the proof. If these proofs are not received by the set deadline, the Editorial Committee shall not be held responsible for any errors or omissions that may be published.

JONNPR shall not be held responsible for either the scientific content or the legal implications of published articles.

The JONNPR Editorial Committee guarantees:

- the independence of its evaluations and decisions with regard to any public or private entity or company that may have any type of interest in the content of the journal.

- its commitment to completing the entire editorial process with the greatest scientific rigour and with respect for the previously mentioned editorial process.

External reviewers

Currently, the journal has 37 reviewers, of which 31 are foreign to the editorial. This means 91.18% of external reviewers.

All members of the editorial board are foreing to the editorial.

Autofile Policy

Published articles can be archived in institutional repositories, thematic or personal web pages from the moment the final PDF is published in Next Publication