Journal of Migraine Management publishes evidence across migraine diagnosis, pathophysiology, acute and preventive treatment, health service delivery, and long-term burden reduction.

We encourage interdisciplinary submissions that combine neurology, pain medicine, epidemiology, imaging, behavioral science, digital health, and implementation research.

Manuscripts should explicitly state their contribution to migraine care quality, disease understanding, policy relevance, or methodological advancement.

Papers focused on non-migraine pain conditions may be considered only when findings directly inform migraine management frameworks.

Authors are encouraged to explain how their work fits current treatment gaps, unresolved mechanism questions, or inequities in access and outcomes.

• Use a concise title reflecting design, population, and primary outcome.
• Provide a structured abstract with objective, methods, results, and conclusion.
• Define abbreviations at first use and keep terminology consistent throughout.
• Report eligibility criteria, setting, and intervention details with enough depth for reproducibility.
• Describe statistical methods, assumptions, and handling of missing data.
• Use SI units and standardized clinical terminology where applicable.

Tables and figures should be self-explanatory with clear legends, denominator reporting, and clinically meaningful labels.

Avoid narrative overstatement. Claims should be proportionate to design strength, endpoint reliability, and observed effect magnitude.

If subgroup analyses are presented, state whether they were prespecified and describe multiplicity management clearly.

Checklist alignment does not replace scientific quality, but it improves manuscript completeness and reviewer efficiency.

Upload supplementary checklists and protocol references as separate files when possible.

Step 1: Editorial triage confirms scope fit, ethics readiness, and baseline reporting quality before reviewer assignment.

Step 2: Qualified reviewers assess methodological rigor, statistical validity, interpretation discipline, and clinical significance.

Step 3: Editors issue a decision with consolidated guidance, including required and optional revision priorities.

Step 4: Revised manuscripts should include a response matrix mapping each comment to exact manuscript updates.

Step 5: Accepted manuscripts move to production where metadata, DOI registration, and final proofing are completed.

Appeals may be submitted with specific evidence-based grounds. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editorial authority not involved in the original decision where feasible.

Use direct, specific language and avoid ambiguity in endpoint definitions, subgroup labels, and treatment timing.

Ensure consistency between abstract claims, results tables, and discussion interpretation to prevent internal contradictions.

Describe limitations transparently and avoid overstating causality from non-randomized evidence.

If needed, use the journal language editing pathway before final submission to improve readability while preserving scientific intent.

Before upload, run a final consistency check across abstract claims, tables, and discussion conclusions to eliminate contradictions. Internal alignment improves reviewer trust and reduces correction requests.

Include a short rationale for primary endpoint choice when multiple clinically relevant outcomes exist. This improves interpretability and prevents ambiguity during evidence appraisal and meta-analysis reuse.

Where statistical models are complex, provide plain-language interpretation alongside technical outputs so clinicians can evaluate practical implications accurately. Communication clarity supports broader adoption of findings.

For multicenter datasets, describe site-level variation handling and sensitivity strategy to support reproducibility claims. Transparent analytical framing is a recurring expectation in editorial assessment.

If submission includes supplementary code, state software versions and dependency assumptions to improve reproducibility for secondary analysts. Operational detail prevents avoidable ambiguity in reruns.

Authors should avoid causal language when design limitations prevent causal inference. Precision in claims is a major quality signal during review and final editorial recommendation.

Cover letters are most useful when they summarize novelty, clinical relevance, and reporting checklist adherence in concise form. Editorial triage efficiency improves when that context is clearly provided.

Revision responses should map each reviewer comment to specific manuscript edits with section references. Structured response matrices substantially improve re-review efficiency and decision speed.

Before upload, run a final consistency check across abstract claims, tables, and discussion conclusions to eliminate contradictions. Internal alignment improves reviewer trust and reduces correction requests.

Include a short rationale for primary endpoint choice when multiple clinically relevant outcomes exist. This improves interpretability and prevents ambiguity during evidence appraisal and meta-analysis reuse.