photo or it didn't happen !
:-)

I would consider Aperture Neuro as the next choice?

Hi Micah,

I.N. editors apply same "thresholds" as we *used to* at old journal, but average submissions have improved, so triage rates are lower than they used to be. At I.N. the breakdown is:

43% accept
18% reject resubmit
11% reject after review
29% triage (including 4% triage too-clinical)

HI Maria - here are some *average* timings at Imaging Neuroscience (of course any individual paper will vary):

- 62 days from initial submission to first major revision decision

- Sending paper to production to final version appearing online: 16 days (includes author proofing time)

I think your scanner's A2D scaling is set a little high :-)

We had published a similar plot in the early UKB brain imaging paper from @fmrib-karla.bsky.social - so this is just a quick update on that. My how the y axis has grown up!

www.nature.com/articles/nn....

Yes and maybe:

It's easy to screen them out (ignore those associations) given that all the non-brain-imaging variables are organised into nice categories.

One might also want to include body size variables as confounds, (though we do by default already use overall head size as a confound).

How about if the journal inserts a hidden message into a paper sent for review, with instructions to the LLM to write a coded message in the review, so the journal can tell if LLM was used by the reviewer?

Indeed - and apparently I'm only allowed to view the award from three pre-specified angles.
:-)

It's *easier* than that - just publish in an OA journal that lets the author keep the copyright :-)

YOU know what I meant :-)

We present a method for disambiguating subject-varying aging rates from fixed baseline effects, in single-timepoint data.

If estimating a single brain age delta per subject, baseline effects dominate.

With multiple modes of brain aging, some modes do reflect aging rates varying across subjects.

For those curious about how it works at IN: editors can't see their own papers in the reviewing system. So I don't even know who the Handling Editor was (or the reviewers) - but thanks to them all for helping improve the paper.