Neuroanatomy and Behaviour was founded to be a journal for rigorous and open science. In 2021, all of the empirical papers published engaged in at least one open science practice, such as open data or open protocols. The papers published have been carefully reviewed by two experts, but may also be sent to additional specialist reviewers for specific tasks, such as checking references or statistical approaches. In 2021, Neuroanatomy and Behaviour reached a key milestone and was accepted into the Directory of Open Access Journals, the world’s leading database of trustworthy open access journals. As we look towards 2022, we will continue improving our publication processes and working to share quality neuroscience without financial barriers for authors or readers.
Tan SZK, Kim JH. mGlu5: A double-edged sword for aversive learning related therapeutics. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour. 2021;3:e16. doi: 10.35430/nab.2021.e16.
McLemon E, Chesworth R. Cannabinoid treatment of opiate addiction. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour. 2021;3:e14. doi: 10.35430/nab.2021.e14.
Lay BPP, Khoo SY-S. Associative processes in addiction relapse models: A review of their Pavlovian and instrumental mechanisms, history, and terminology. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour. 2021;3:e18. doi: 10.35430/nab.2021.e18.
Didio G, Casarotto P. The perception of reproducibility in a small cohort of scientists in Europe. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour. 2021;3:e20. doi: 10.35430/nab.2021.e20.
Burdakov D, Karnani M. Orexin neuron activity in mating mice - a pilot study. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour. 2021;3:e17. doi: 10.35430/nab.2021.e17.
Cullity ER, Guérin AA, Madsen HB, Perry CJ, Kim JH. Insular cortex dopamine 1 and 2 receptors in methamphetamine conditioned place preference and aversion: Age and sex differences. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour. 2021;3:e24. doi: 10.35430/nab.2021.e24.
Maximino C. Decynium-22 affects behavior in the zebrafish light/dark test. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour. 2021;3:e21. doi: 10.35430/nab.2021.e21.
Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications. 2019;10(1):322. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2.
Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311.
Holl A. Response to "Is CC BY the best open access license?". Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2012;1(2):eP1055. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1055.
Graf K, Thatcher S. Point & counterpoint: Is CC BY the best open access license? Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2012;1(1):eP1043. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1043.
Eve MP. Open licensing. In: Eve MP, editor. Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 86-111. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316161012.005.
Yi D. Is Creative Commons a panacea for managing digital humanities intellectual property rights? Information Technology and Libraries. 2019;38(3). doi: 10.6017/ital.v38i3.10714.
Mallalieu R. The elusive gold mine? The finer details of Creative Commons licences – and why they really matter. Insights: the UKSG journal. 2019;32(1):1. doi: 10.1629/uksg.448.
Gulley N. Creative Commons: Challenges and solutions for researchers; a publisher's perspective of copyright in an open access environment. Insights: the UKSG journal. 2013;26(2):168-73. doi: 10.1629/2048-7754.107.
Dörre DT. Current case law on Creative Commons licences. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2015;10(4):310-2. doi: 10.1093/jiplp/jpv037.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.