What is the impact factor of Brain?

Brain has an impact factor of 10.6 (2024). This places it among the top-tier journals in its field with Brain wants papers that advance our mechanistic understanding of the nervous system in health and disease.

How long does Brain take to review?

Brain typically takes 6-8 weeks for first decision. The full review process involves 6 main stages: pre-submission inquiry (optional but recommended for unusual formats), initial manuscript submission, and peer review.

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

Brain Impact Factor 10.6: Publishing Guide

Q: What is the acceptance rate of Brain?

Brain has an acceptance rate of ~15%. A common reason for rejection is submitting purely descriptive clinical case series. Brain receives many submissions that describe the clinical features of patients with rare diseases or unusual presentations. While these papers might be valuable, they don't fit Brain's mission unless they reveal something about mechanism. A case series of 50 patients with a novel genetic form of neuropathy is interesting, but Brain wants to know WHY those patients have neuropathy. What's the molecular pathway? How does the mutation cause axonal damage? If you can't answer these questions with your data, consider Archives of Neurology or JNNP instead.

Q: Is Brain peer reviewed?

Yes, Brain is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by Papers typically receive two to three reviews from experts who evaluate both scientific rigor and the significance of your mechanistic claims. Reviewers are asked specifically whether the paper advances understanding of brain function or disease. Reviews are usually thorough and constructive, even for papers that get rejected..

Q: What does Brain look for in submissions?

Mechanistic depth over phenomenological description: Brain's editors will desk-reject papers that simply describe a new clinical finding without explaining the underlying mechanism. If you've found that patients with a particular mutation have cerebellar atrophy, that's not enough. You need to show why those neurons are vulnerable, what cellular processes fail, and how that connects to the clinical picture. The best Brain papers move seamlessly between bedside observations and bench-level explanations. This doesn't mean every paper needs mouse models, but it does mean you need a testable mechanistic hypothesis supported by your data.

Q: What should I know before submitting to Brain?

Use the cover letter to establish mechanism upfront. The handling editor makes a desk-rejection decision quickly, often based heavily on the cover letter and abstract. Your cover letter should explicitly state the mechanistic advance in the first paragraph. Don't bury it after describing the clinical background. Say exactly what new understanding your paper provides about how the brain works or fails. This isn't the place for modesty or hedging.

Brain is the oldest and most respected neurology journal in the world, founded in 1878. If you've got mechanistic insight into how the nervous system works or fails, this is where serious neurologists look first.

10.6

Impact Factor (2024)

~15%

Acceptance Rate

6-8 weeks for first decision

Time to First Decision

What Brain Publishes

Brain wants papers that advance our mechanistic understanding of the nervous system in health and disease. It's not enough to describe a clinical phenomenon or report a new genetic variant - you need to explain WHY something happens at a cellular, circuit, or systems level. The journal bridges clinical neurology and basic neuroscience, so papers that connect patient observations to underlying biology do particularly well. Editors aren't interested in incremental advances or confirmatory studies. They're looking for work that changes how neurologists think about a disease or how neuroscientists model brain function.

Clinical-translational studies that identify disease mechanisms, not just biomarkers or prognostic factors - you need the 'how' and 'why' alongside the 'what'
Neuroimaging studies that reveal circuit-level dysfunction, particularly when combined with pathological or genetic validation in patient cohorts
Movement disorders research connecting clinical phenotypes to basal ganglia circuitry or molecular pathology in substantia nigra
Dementia and neurodegeneration papers that go beyond amyloid and tau to explain selective vulnerability or spreading patterns
Stroke and cerebrovascular research with mechanistic insight into injury cascades, recovery mechanisms, or network reorganization

Editor Insight

“I spend a lot of my time desk-rejecting papers that would be fine for other journals but don't fit what we're trying to do at Brain. The most common problem I see is purely descriptive work - you've found something interesting in your patients, but you haven't told me why it happens. A paper that says 'patients with mutation X have symptom Y' will get returned immediately unless you can explain the mechanism connecting X to Y. I also reject many neuroimaging studies where the authors haven't thought beyond the statistical maps. So your patients show reduced connectivity in some network - what does that mean for their symptoms? What's happening at the cellular level? We want papers that move the field forward conceptually, not just add data points. If you're not sure whether your paper is mechanistic enough, it probably isn't. Consider whether you can add experiments that get at the 'why' before submitting, or aim for a specialty journal instead.”

What Brain Editors Look For

Mechanistic depth over phenomenological description

Brain's editors will desk-reject papers that simply describe a new clinical finding without explaining the underlying mechanism. If you've found that patients with a particular mutation have cerebellar atrophy, that's not enough. You need to show why those neurons are vulnerable, what cellular processes fail, and how that connects to the clinical picture. The best Brain papers move seamlessly between bedside observations and bench-level explanations. This doesn't mean every paper needs mouse models, but it does mean you need a testable mechanistic hypothesis supported by your data.

Clinical relevance that matters to practicing neurologists

Pure basic science papers without clinical connection typically get redirected to other journals. Brain's readership includes academic neurologists who see patients, and they want research that eventually changes practice. That doesn't mean you need a phase III trial - a paper revealing why certain neurons die in Parkinson's disease is clinically relevant because it suggests therapeutic targets. But a paper on synaptic plasticity in hippocampal slices without connection to human disease won't make it here. Frame your work in terms of patient impact, even if that impact is years away.

Rigorous statistics with appropriate sample sizes

Underpowered studies are a major reason for rejection. Brain's reviewers know the field well enough to spot when your sample size can't support your conclusions. This is especially true for neuroimaging studies, where small samples and multiple comparisons create false positives. If you're doing voxel-based morphometry with 15 patients, reviewers will question every significant cluster. The journal expects pre-registration for clinical studies and clear justification for sample sizes in all submissions. Don't try to squeeze three papers out of one dataset.

Well-characterized patient cohorts

Clinical papers need patients diagnosed according to established criteria, ideally with genetic confirmation, biomarker support, or autopsy validation where relevant. Brain doesn't want 'probable AD' cohorts where half the patients might have vascular dementia or DLB. Heterogeneous patient groups muddy mechanistic conclusions. If you're studying a rare disease, small numbers are acceptable, but phenotyping must be deep. Reviewers will scrutinize your inclusion criteria and ask whether your findings could be explained by diagnostic uncertainty.

Clear writing that bridges specialties

Brain's audience includes movement disorder specialists, stroke neurologists, neurophysiologists, and basic scientists. A paper on cerebellar ataxia needs to be understandable to someone who studies frontotemporal dementia. This means avoiding excessive jargon, explaining specialized techniques, and contextualizing findings for readers outside your subfield. The introduction should establish why anyone interested in the brain should care about your specific question. Methods need enough detail for replication without becoming impenetrable to non-specialists.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past Brain's editorial review:

Submitting purely descriptive clinical case series

Brain receives many submissions that describe the clinical features of patients with rare diseases or unusual presentations. While these papers might be valuable, they don't fit Brain's mission unless they reveal something about mechanism. A case series of 50 patients with a novel genetic form of neuropathy is interesting, but Brain wants to know WHY those patients have neuropathy. What's the molecular pathway? How does the mutation cause axonal damage? If you can't answer these questions with your data, consider Archives of Neurology or JNNP instead.

Neuroimaging studies without mechanistic interpretation

Showing that patients with condition X have reduced gray matter in region Y is no longer sufficient. Reviewers will ask what that atrophy means for circuit function and how it explains symptoms. The strongest neuroimaging papers connect structural or functional findings to postmortem pathology, genetic factors, or physiological measures. A connectivity study that shows disrupted default mode network in depression won't make it unless you can explain what that disruption represents at a synaptic or neurotransmitter level. Think beyond the pretty brain pictures.

Animal studies without human validation

Brain is a clinical neuroscience journal, not a basic neuroscience journal. Mouse studies need clear connection to human disease, ideally with validation in patient tissue, iPSC-derived neurons, or clinical cohorts. A paper showing that a drug works in a Parkinson's mouse model has limited appeal unless you've tested it in human neurons or connected it to human genetic data. The journal wants translational work, which means translation goes both directions - from mice to humans and from humans to mechanistic experiments.

Overselling preliminary findings

Claims that exceed what the data support are a fast track to rejection. Reviewers at this level have seen hundreds of papers claiming to have 'solved' aspects of neurological disease, and they're appropriately skeptical. If your study suggests a mechanism, say suggests. If you've identified a potential therapeutic target, don't claim you've found a cure. Measured conclusions that acknowledge limitations are far more persuasive than breathless claims. Brain's readers are sophisticated and won't be fooled by hype.

Inadequate methods for reproducibility

Brain takes reproducibility seriously, and incomplete methods sections will get flagged. For imaging studies, this means full acquisition parameters, preprocessing pipelines, and statistical thresholds. For genetic studies, it means complete variant calling details and validation approaches. For clinical studies, it means clear diagnostic criteria and blinding procedures. Reviewers who can't figure out exactly what you did will assume you're hiding something. Include supplementary methods if needed, but make sure someone could replicate your work from your description.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The quick diagnostic reads your full manuscript against Brain's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from Brain Authors

Use the cover letter to establish mechanism upfront

The handling editor makes a desk-rejection decision quickly, often based heavily on the cover letter and abstract. Your cover letter should explicitly state the mechanistic advance in the first paragraph. Don't bury it after describing the clinical background. Say exactly what new understanding your paper provides about how the brain works or fails. This isn't the place for modesty or hedging.

Request specific reviewers who bridge clinical and basic science

Brain relies on reviewers who can evaluate both the clinical rigor and the mechanistic claims. If your paper has both components, suggest reviewers who work at that interface. Avoid suggesting purely clinical reviewers for papers with substantial basic science, or vice versa. The editor will often follow your suggestions if they're appropriate, and mismatched reviewers cause problems.

Connect to classic Brain papers in your introduction

The journal has published foundational work in neurology for over 140 years. Editors appreciate when authors situate their work within this tradition. Citing relevant Brain papers from the past decade shows you know the journal and helps editors see fit. This isn't about flattery - it's about demonstrating that your work contributes to ongoing conversations in the journal's pages.

Front-load your most striking finding in the abstract

Brain's editors see thousands of submissions. They're scanning your abstract for the key mechanistic insight, and it needs to appear in the first two sentences. Don't build up to it. State your major finding immediately, then provide context. An abstract that takes six sentences to get to the point will lose busy editors before they understand what you've discovered.

Consider submitting to Brain Communications for solid but incremental work

Brain's open-access sister journal, Brain Communications, handles good work that doesn't quite reach Brain's bar for mechanistic novelty. If your paper is methodologically sound but confirmatory, or if your mechanism isn't fully worked out, Brain Communications might be more appropriate. Editors sometimes transfer rejected papers there, and submitting directly saves time if you're uncertain about fit.

The Brain Submission Process

Pre-submission inquiry (optional but recommended for unusual formats)

1-2 weeks for response

If you're unsure about scope or have an unconventional paper format, email the editorial office before submitting. This isn't necessary for standard research articles that clearly fit the scope, but it can save months if you're uncertain. The editors respond quickly and will tell you honestly whether to proceed.

Initial manuscript submission

Same day completion

Submit through ScholarOne with all figures embedded in the main document for initial review. You don't need to format perfectly for first submission - Brain allows flexibility during initial review. Include a cover letter that explicitly states your mechanistic contribution and suggests at least three potential reviewers with relevant expertise.

Editorial triage and desk decision

1-2 weeks

The handling editor evaluates scope fit, mechanistic depth, and likely reviewer interest. About half of submissions are desk-rejected within two weeks, typically because they lack mechanistic insight or don't fit the clinical-translational scope. If your paper passes triage, it goes to external peer review.

Peer review

4-6 weeks

Papers typically receive two to three reviews from experts who evaluate both scientific rigor and the significance of your mechanistic claims. Reviewers are asked specifically whether the paper advances understanding of brain function or disease. Reviews are usually thorough and constructive, even for papers that get rejected.

Editorial decision and revision

Decision: 6-8 weeks total; Revision: 3 months allowed

Most accepted papers require revision. Brain's revision requests tend to be substantial, often asking for additional experiments or analyses to strengthen mechanistic claims. You'll typically get three months for major revisions, less for minor changes. The same reviewers usually evaluate your revision.

Final acceptance and production

4-6 weeks to online publication

After acceptance, you'll receive proofs within a few weeks. Brain's production team is efficient, and papers typically appear online first within a month of acceptance. Open access is available through Oxford's standard agreements, and many institutional deals cover fees automatically.

Brain by the Numbers

Impact Factor(2024 Clarivate JCR, consistently among top neurology journals)	10.6
Acceptance Rate(Approximately half desk-rejected before review)	~15%
Time to First Decision(Faster for desk rejections, around 2 weeks)	6-8 weeks
Median Time to Publication(From submission to online first appearance)	5-6 months
CiteScore(Scopus 2023, reflecting citation influence)	17.3
Article Volume(Highly selective, monthly publication)	~300/year

Before you submit

Brain accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

The pre-submission diagnostic runs a live literature search, scores your manuscript section by section, and gives you a prioritized fix list calibrated to Brain. ~30 minutes.

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Original Article

4,500 words main text

Primary research advancing mechanistic understanding of nervous system function or disease. Must include novel data and clear mechanistic conclusions.

Review

6,000 words

Invited and unsolicited reviews synthesizing advances in a specific topic. Unsolicited reviews should propose a novel conceptual framework, not just summarize existing literature.

Report

2,500 words

Shorter format for preliminary findings of high interest that warrant rapid publication. Still requires mechanistic insight, not just novel observations.

Scientific Commentary

1,500 words

Invited pieces accompanying specific papers that place findings in broader context. Occasionally accepts unsolicited commentaries on recently published Brain papers.

Letter to the Editor

800 words

Brief correspondence responding to published articles or presenting very preliminary observations. Must add to scientific discourse, not just critique.

Landmark Brain Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

Braak et al., 2003 - Established staging system for Parkinson's disease pathology based on Lewy body spreading patterns
Rascol et al., 2000 - Demonstrated ropinirole efficacy in early Parkinson's disease with reduced dyskinesia risk, establishing dopamine agonist as first-line therapy
Hodges et al., 1992 - Defined semantic dementia as a distinct syndrome of temporal lobe degeneration
Seeley et al., 2009 - Showed selective vulnerability of von Economo neurons in frontotemporal dementia
Bateman et al., 2012 - Identified preclinical biomarker changes years before symptom onset in dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease

Preparing a Brain Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in Brain and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? Human review from $1,000

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Movement disorders and basal ganglia circuitsNeurodegeneration and dementia mechanismsStroke and cerebrovascular diseaseEpilepsy and neurophysiologyNeuroimmunology and neuroinflammationMotor neuron disease and neurogeneticsCognitive neurology and higher brain functionPeripheral neuropathy and neuromuscular diseaseNeurorehabilitation and plasticityCerebellar disorders and ataxias

Related Journal Guides

All journal guides

All articles

Ready to submit to Brain?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what Brain editors look for.

Need field-expert depth? Human review from $1,000