For reviewers
Reviewer guidelines
What the journal asks of a reviewer, from the invitation to the deletion of the files afterward.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Your role
- Advice to the editor, not the decision
- Confidentiality
- Applies from invitation onward
- Editorial office
- [email protected]
Reviewing for the journal
The points below are the substance of what the journal asks for; the order follows the review itself.
Confidentiality
A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it with anyone the editor has not approved, or use its content before publication.
Conflicts of interest
Decline where a collaborative, institutional, financial or personal interest would make an independent assessment difficult, and say so promptly so the editor can invite someone else.
What the assessment should cover
- Whether the question is stated clearly and the design can answer it.
- Whether the methods are reported in enough detail to be assessed and repeated.
- Whether the analysis is appropriate and the results support the conclusions drawn.
- Whether the limits of the work are stated.
- Whether the literature is represented fairly.
Write for the author as well as the editor
Separate what would change the conclusions from what would improve the presentation, and give reasons an author can act on. A recommendation is advice to the editor; the decision is the editor's.
Double-blind manuscripts
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Integrity concerns
Raise a suspected ethical, authorship, data or overlap problem with the editor rather than with the authors, and set out what you observed.
Use of AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Files, after the review
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Where the review sits
A review informs an editorial decision. Both halves of that sentence matter.
The model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
The decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Reviewer reports are weighed by the handling editor, who is accountable for the outcome. Editorial decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, or roles.
Journal of Nervous System and Physiological Phenomena
Published by Open Access Pub
Questions about whether a manuscript fits the journal may be sent to [email protected] before submission. Author requirements are set out in the Instructions for Authors, and the subject boundary in Aims and Scope.