Neuroanatomy and Systems Neuroscience Analysis

Proof required

Submit your neural system selection, your specific analytical question (what aspect of anatomical organisation or functional connectivity you will investigate), your identified data source (Allen Brain Atlas, HCP, OpenNeuro, or published connectivity data with accession number), and a brief description of the biological significance of your chosen system — why this system's organisation is important for understanding neural function.

What gets checked

• Neural system is specific — not 'the brain' or 'the limbic system' but a defined circuit or pathway (e.g., 'the hippocampal-entorhinal circuit involved in spatial navigation and memory consolidation')
• Analytical question is answerable from the data source identified — the question must be matched to what the dataset actually contains
• Biological significance statement connects the anatomical question to a functional or clinical relevance — why does the organisation of this system matter?

Common mistakes

• Choosing a system too broad to characterise in a single analysis — a complete analysis of the entire prefrontal cortex is not feasible at this level; select a specific circuit, pathway, or region
• Selecting a data source without checking what resolution, species, and experimental conditions it provides — not all neuroimaging datasets support the same analytical questions

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to describe the main known projections of their chosen system — tests whether they have the background neuroanatomical knowledge to interpret their analysis.
• Ask what a disruption to this system's organisation produces clinically — connects anatomical analysis to neuroscientific significance.
• Ask whether the data source they have chosen provides data at the appropriate resolution and in the appropriate species for their question.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your analysis pipeline documentation (tools, software, and parameters used), at least two figures (an anatomical reference map and a result figure showing the quantitative measure you extracted), and a statistical or quantitative summary reporting the specific metric with its value and how it was derived.

What gets checked

• Analysis is quantitative — not a description of where the region is but a specific extracted measure with a numerical value and units
• Tool and software are named with version number — neuroimaging results are tool-dependent; reproducibility requires knowing exactly what was used
• Figures are interpretable without the report — each figure has a meaningful title, labelled axes, and a legend that makes its content self-explanatory

Common mistakes

• Producing only atlas screenshots as the analysis output — screenshots confirm that the system exists in the atlas; quantitative analysis extracts a specific measure that addresses the question
• Using neuroimaging tools without understanding the parameters — FSL, FreeSurfer, and SPM all have parameters with significant effects on results; not understanding what the parameters do means the results cannot be interpreted

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to explain what specific parameter choices most affected their result — tests whether they understand what the analysis is actually computing.
• Ask how the connectivity metric they extracted compares to published values for the same system — benchmarking against the literature is a standard quality check.
• Ask what would happen to the result if a different atlas parcellation was used — introduces the concept of atlas choice as a methodological variable.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your complete systems analysis report (2500–4000 words: introduction with neural system context and research question, methods including tools, software version, and parameters, results with figures and quantitative measures, discussion interpreting the anatomical findings in terms of neural function, and conclusion) plus a Q&A record showing specific challenges to the analysis or interpretation and your responses. The reviewer must be named and their systems or cognitive neuroscience background stated.

What gets checked

• Discussion connects the anatomical findings to functional significance — anatomical connectivity analysis that does not interpret what the connectivity pattern means for neural computation is incomplete
• Limitations section addresses the specific limitations of the dataset or analysis method used — not generic neuroimaging limitations but the specific constraints that apply to this analysis
• Q&A record shows at least two challenges to the interpretation or methodology and substantive responses

Common mistakes

• A discussion section that only describes what was found without interpreting function — a circuit analysis report must connect structure to function; descriptive anatomy alone is not sufficient
• A reviewer without systems neuroscience background — general biological science knowledge is not sufficient to challenge the functional interpretation of neural connectivity findings

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to predict what would happen to a specific behaviour or cognitive function if the circuit they analysed was disrupted — tests the depth of the structure-function interpretation.
• Ask what evidence would be needed to establish a causal role for the connectivity they measured — distinguishes correlational connectivity analysis from causal circuit manipulation.
• Verify the reviewer has systems neuroscience expertise — anatomical expertise alone is insufficient if the question is about functional connectivity and neural computation.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.