Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

NeuroRegulation provides an integrated, multidisciplinary perspective on clinically relevant research, treatment, and public policy for neuroregulation and neurotherapy. NeuroRegulation reviews important findings in these fields with a focus on electroencephalography (EEG), neurofeedback, quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG), psychophysiology, biofeedback, heart rate variability, repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Simulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS); with a focus on treatment of psychiatric, mind-body, and neurological disorders.  The journal is open access with no submission fees or APC (Author Processing Charges).

The journal draws from expertise inside and outside of the International Society for Neurofeedback & Research to deliver material which integrates the diverse aspects of the field:

-basic science
-clinical aspects
-training and certification issues
-treatment evaluation
-technology and equipment


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Special Features

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Papers

Submissions in this section must have IRB review in order to be considered a "Research Paper".

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Clinical Corner

Submissions to this section do not require IRB review and we welcome case studies or clinical viewpoints.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


This section allows for a closer examination of a variety of topics.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Technical Notes

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


This section is for correspondence submissions, such as "Letters to the Editor" and similar items.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


This section is for the inclusion and coverage of Conference abstracts.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

News from Other Journals and Websites

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

NeuroRegulation is a peer-reviewed journal.  Submitted manuscripts are initially pre-reviewed; afterwhich, the designated Associate Editor will either 1) approve the manuscript for the peer review process, or 2) provide pre-review feedback with revision suggestions or the reason it is not an appropriate manuscript for NeuroRegulation.  Reviewed manuscripts may be accepted as submitted, accepted conditional on satisfactory revisions, require revisons prior to further review, rejected encouraging revision and resubmission, or rejected.


Publication Frequency

NeuroRegulation will be published quarterly.

In 2014 and 2015 the publication months are: April, July, October, and December.

Beginning in 2016, the publication months are: March, June, September, and December


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.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Guidelines

NeuroRegulation is committed to high ethical and professional standards in publication as well as scholarly quality in the articles it publishes.  As such, it is expected that, along with the Publisher, Authors, Reviewers, and Editors and will conform to standards of ethical behavior as outlined in the Author Guidelines and outlined as follows:

Authors:  Authors are expected to ensure they have written the submission and to submit work which is entirely original works; if others’ works or words are used, appropriate acknowledgement is provided.   All forms of plagiarism or other unethical behavior, such as knowingly including inaccurate statements, are unacceptable. It is expected that authors have significantly contributed to the work and not only present accurate accounts of their original research, but also include an objective discussion regarding its significance.  Review papers are expected to be comprehensive, objective, and accurate accounts of the review topic.  It is unethical to concurrently submit the same manuscript to more than one journal is considered unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.  Therefore, during this journal’s submission process authors must attest that their manuscript is only submitted to this journal.  It is encumbent on the corresponding author to ensure full consensus of all co-authors prior to submitting the original manuscripts and revised versions of the final version of the paper.  Authors are expected to provide corrections or retractions of mistakes, when discovered.

Reviewers and Section Editors:  It is expected that reviewers and/or section editors will consider and treat submitted manuscripts, as well as information and ideas acquired during peer review, as confidential and/or not to be used for personal advantage.  Reviewers and/or Section Editors shall not use unpublished content from a submitted manuscript without expressed written consent from the authors.  Should a reviewer discover they have conflicts of interest from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected with the manuscript, they should notify the Editor and excuse themselves from the paper review. Requested reviewers should contact the editor should they feel unqualified to review the manuscript, or knows they cannot conduct a review within the requested time frame.  In order for the review process to aid authors in improving the manuscript, reviews should be performed objectively, with clearly formulated observations with supporting arguments. Moreover, reviewers should point out relevant published works which the authors have not yet cited.  Reviewers should immediately bring to the editor’s attention any significant similarity or overlap between the paper under consideration and other published paper for which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

Editors:   Editors at all levels are expected to take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of manuscripts which involve research misconduct.  Editors shall not encourage such misconduct, unethical behavior, or knowingly allow such behavior to take place.  The Editor-in-Chief will appropriately address any allegation of research misconduct or unethical behavior, up to and including the potential for retracting articles when needed.  Editors are expected to be willing to publish clarifications, correction, retractions and/or apologies when needed.