Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: NBR author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the synthesis methodology is rigorous
• whether PRISMA reporting is complete
• whether neuroscience contribution is direct

• a clear systematic review or meta-analysis methodology
• PRISMA reporting completed
• direct neuroscience relevance
• rigorous methodology
• a cover letter establishing the contribution

• Literature reviews without integrative synthesis.
• Weak meta-analytic methodology.
• Missing PRISMA reporting.
• Clinical without neuroscience focus.

NBR is a flagship neuroscience review journal.

Synthesis-rigor standard: the journal differentiates from Trends in Neurosciences (Trends format) and Annual Review of Neuroscience (Annual format) by demanding rigorous synthesis methodology.

PRISMA expectation: editors expect PRISMA reporting for systematic reviews.

The 40-50% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest NBR cover letters establish:

• the synthesis methodology
• the PRISMA reporting
• the neuroscience contribution
• the central finding

NBR requires these at first submission:

• editable manuscript source file (.docx or.tex, not PDF) with numbered section structure per Elsevier convention
• cover letter establishing the integrative-brain-function-and-behavior contribution and the article-type fit (Review / Mini-Review / Meta-Analysis / Opinion / Society Consensus / Commentary)
• structured abstract per Elsevier convention
• for Meta-Analyses, PRISMA flow diagram and PRISMA checklist (strongly encouraged)
• for Society Consensus Statements, statement of endorsement from the relevant society
• author byline with full names, affiliations, and ORCID iDs
• author CRediT contribution statement
• competing-interests declaration
• ethics statement (where applicable for any primary-data work referenced in the review)
• data and code availability statements with deposit references for meta-analytic datasets
• AI disclosure: authors are REQUIRED to disclose any use of AI tools in writing the acknowledgements section, OR explicitly state "No AI tool was used to generate any part of the paper" (non-disclosure may result in editorial withdrawal, one of the strictest AI-disclosure policies in the Elsevier portfolio)
• suggested reviewers with institutional affiliations
• $4,140 USD APC for the Elsevier gold open-access option (2026; subscription publication has no APC; many institutional Elsevier transformative agreements cover the fee)
• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process per Elsevier policy
• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

In our pre-submission review work for NBR, the most common artifact-related issue is missing or perfunctory AI-disclosure statements. NBR's policy is stricter than most Elsevier journals: undisclosed AI use can result in editorial withdrawal (not just revision). Authors who do not include the explicit "No AI tool was used to generate any part of the paper" statement OR a full AI-use disclosure in the acknowledgements face routine technical-screen returns before the manuscript reaches the editor's desk.

Run a Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit to verify the package meets the journal's integrative-neuroscience-and-behavior bar.

In our pre-submission review work for NBR, manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The editorial triage pattern at Elsevier neuroscience-review journals favors submissions where the cover letter names a specific failure pattern in current neuroscience-and-behavior practice or theory that the manuscript addresses. Editors routinely reject pure-neuroscience or pure-behavior submissions without integrative framing and consistently screen for cover letters that demonstrate awareness of the journal's recent editorial culture around brain-and-behavior integration across physiology / psychology / health / disease.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and technical check

The platform performs automated checks (source-file format, declarations, AI-disclosure compliance, ORCID linking). PDF source files and submissions without AI-disclosure are returned at this stage.

Day 5 to 21: Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor desk-screen

A Section Editor (matched to systems neuroscience and behavior, clinical and translational neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, computational and theoretical neuroscience, sleep and consciousness, addiction and reward, or stress and emotion) reviews scope fit and the integrative-framing strength.

Week 4 to 12: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers selected for both neuroscience and behavioral expertise.

Week 12 to 24: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the 3-4 month median, typically as major or minor revision. Revision cycles add 6-12 weeks. Authors may file a formal appeal per Elsevier's Appeal Policy (one appeal per submission, decision final).

• Is Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an NBR synthesis readiness check.

The sources above define the mechanics; the harder question is whether this draft earns review. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes the Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews fit screen before upload, especially around literature reviews without integrative synthesis, weak meta-analytic methodology, and missing PRISMA reporting. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

In our pre-submission review work with neuroscience reviews targeting NBR, three recurring patterns explain the majority of desk rejections.

Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis shows many NBR desk rejections trace to literature-review framing. The same pattern analysis often finds these cases involve weak meta-analytic methodology. A related pattern is that these cases often arise from missing PRISMA reporting.

Literature reviews without integrative synthesis

NBR editors expect systematic methodology. We observe submissions framed as narrative reviews routinely desk-rejected.

Check whether your Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews manuscript passes the literature reviews without integrative synthesis screen →

Weak meta-analytic methodology

Editors expect rigorous methods. We see meta-analyses with thin methodology routinely returned.

Check whether your Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews manuscript passes the weak meta-analytic methodology screen →

Missing PRISMA reporting

NBR specifically expects PRISMA reporting. We find papers without completed PRISMA checklists routinely flagged. An NBR synthesis check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places NBR among top neuroscience review journals.

Check whether your Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews manuscript passes the missing prisma reporting screen →

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top neuroscience review journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, methodology must be systematic. Second, PRISMA reporting should be complete. Third, neuroscience relevance should be direct. Fourth, comprehensive search should be documented.

For Neuroscience And Biobehavioral Reviews-targeted manuscripts, the single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for NBR is the narrative-versus-systematic distinction. NBR editors expect systematic methodology. Submissions framed as "we review the literature" without systematic search routinely receive "where is the systematic methodology?" feedback. We coach authors to lead with the systematic approach.

For Neuroscience And Biobehavioral Reviews-targeted manuscripts, beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for NBR. First, manuscripts where methodology lacks systematic search documentation are flagged. Second, manuscripts where PRISMA flow diagram is missing are flagged. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with NBR's recent issues are flagged.

The NBR submissions we coach toward acceptance distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, the cover letter names the integrative brain-and-behavior contribution (which physiology / psychology / health / disease intersection the work addresses) within the first 80 words rather than describing the review topic generically. Second, meta-analytic submissions include a complete PRISMA flow diagram in the main text (not buried in supplementary) and a pre-registered protocol reference at PROSPERO or OSF (NBR enforces both as substantive editorial-rigor signals). Third, the AI-disclosure statement is explicit at submission (either full disclosure of AI tool use in the acknowledgements OR explicit "No AI tool was used to generate any part of the paper") because NBR's editorial-withdrawal-for-non-disclosure policy is among the strictest in the Elsevier portfolio.

Editorial triage at NBR operates on limited time per manuscript. Editors typically scan abstract, introduction, methodology, and conclusions before deciding whether to invite reviewer engagement. We coach researchers to design abstract, introduction, and conclusions for fast assessment.

Beyond methodology and contribution, NBR weights author-team authority within the neuroscience subfield. Strong submissions reference NBR's recent papers explicitly. We coach researchers to identify 3-5 recent NBR papers building on.

At NBR, subfield positioning is read through the manuscript's engagement with named brain-and-behavior debates: the systems-vs-cellular-neuroscience integration question, the developmental-vs-disease-trajectory framework, the imaging-vs-electrophysiology evidence-class debate, the human-vs-rodent translational validity question, or the meta-analysis-vs-narrative-review evidence-synthesis methodological choice. Strong submissions identify which named debate the review intervenes in and frame contributions in those terms. Generic "we review the literature on X" framings consistently underperform debate-engaged framings even when the underlying synthesis is comparable.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for journals at this tier is the synthesis-versus-survey distinction. A comprehensive survey catalogs recent papers. A synthesis offers an organizing framework, a contrarian argument, or a methodological consolidation that changes how readers see the field. Articles at this tier are read as authoritative not because they are exhaustive but because they organize the field's understanding around a defensible argument. We coach researchers to articulate their organizing argument in one sentence before drafting. If the one-sentence argument reduces to "we comprehensively review recent advances in X," the manuscript is structurally a survey and will likely fail. If it reads like "we argue that X-Y interaction reorganizes how Z should be understood," the manuscript is structurally a synthesis with better editorial traction.