Scope and Relevance
Submissions must materially contribute to migraine and headache medicine evidence.
Policy and Integrity Standards
Editorial Policies
Editorial Policies
Journal of Migraine Management
A clear policy framework supporting ethical, transparent, and methodologically rigorous migraine publishing.
45%APC Savings
Global -Research Community
24/7Editorial Support
Editorial Standards
Policy Framework Governing Publication Decisions
All decisions are based on scientific quality, ethical integrity, and relevance to migraine management.
Journal of Migraine Management applies policy controls that support transparent, consistent, and evidence-led editorial decisions across all article types.
Manuscripts are evaluated on methodological rigor, reporting transparency, interpretation discipline, and clinical or scientific contribution strength.
Editorial independence is maintained irrespective of sponsor interest, author institution, or topical popularity.
Methodological Integrity
Design quality, statistical validity, and reproducibility are core decision criteria.
Ethical Compliance
Approval, consent, and participant protections must be explicitly documented.
Transparency
Conflicts, funding roles, and data availability statements are mandatory.
Peer Review Policy
Reviewer Selection and Decision Process
Peer review is structured to produce balanced technical critique and actionable improvement guidance.
- Reviewers are selected for subject expertise and conflict-free status.
- Editorial teams monitor review quality and timeliness throughout the cycle.
- Decisions reflect reviewer evidence plus editorial synthesis of key issues.
- Revisions require clear response mapping and manuscript-level traceability.
- Final acceptance requires resolution of critical validity and reporting concerns.
Where reviewer opinions diverge materially, additional expert review may be requested to improve decision confidence.
Research Integrity
Plagiarism, Image Integrity, and Misconduct Handling
Integrity controls are applied before and during peer review.
Similarity Screening
All submissions undergo similarity checks to detect overlap and unattributed reuse.
Image and Data Review
Potential manipulation signals trigger clarification requests or formal integrity review.
Authorship Validation
Substantial contribution and accountability criteria are required for listed authors.
Duplicate Submission Policy
Concurrent or redundant submission behavior may trigger rejection and notice procedures.
Confirmed misconduct may result in rejection, publication correction, retraction, and institutional notification according to severity and documented evidence.
Corrections and Retractions
Post-Publication Policy Controls
The journal maintains transparent mechanisms for correcting the scientific record when needed.
Minor errors that do not alter conclusions may be handled through formal correction notices linked to the original record.
Material errors affecting validity may require expression of concern or retraction after editorial and author communication procedures are completed.
Version control and correction transparency are maintained to support trust among clinicians, policymakers, and evidence synthesis teams.
Appeals and Complaints
Escalation Path for Authors and Review Stakeholders
Appeals must be evidence-based and specific to decision rationale, not general disagreement.
- Submit appeal with specific methodological or factual grounds.
- Provide point-by-point explanation of contested decision elements.
- Include supporting references or analyses where relevant.
- Avoid duplicate appeal submissions while review is active.
Complaints about process conduct are reviewed separately from manuscript outcome appeals and handled under editorial governance procedures.
Policy consistency protects fairness across manuscript types and author groups. Predictable standards improve trust in editorial decisions and strengthen the journal evidence brand.
Transparent governance also helps reviewers and editors align recommendations with documented criteria rather than informal preference patterns. This improves decision coherence.
Post-publication correction procedures are essential for maintaining a reliable scientific record. Clear correction pathways protect clinicians relying on published evidence.
Appeal handling should remain evidence-focused and process-transparent to avoid prolonged uncertainty for authors. Well-structured appeals improve reviewability and response quality.
Integrity screening at intake stage reduces downstream risk and supports efficient reviewer use of time. Early controls help protect publication reliability.
Conflict disclosures must be treated as active governance inputs, not administrative formalities. Proper management prevents perceived or actual bias in recommendations.
Policy consistency protects fairness across manuscript types and author groups. Predictable standards improve trust in editorial decisions and strengthen the journal evidence brand.
Transparent governance also helps reviewers and editors align recommendations with documented criteria rather than informal preference patterns. This improves decision coherence.
Post-publication correction procedures are essential for maintaining a reliable scientific record. Clear correction pathways protect clinicians relying on published evidence.
Appeal handling should remain evidence-focused and process-transparent to avoid prolonged uncertainty for authors. Well-structured appeals improve reviewability and response quality.
Submit Under a Transparent Policy Framework
Prepare your manuscript with full compliance declarations and submit through your preferred route.
Editorial support: [email protected]
