Peer Review Policy
The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and independent peer-review process. Peer review is an essential component of the journal's editorial process and is used to assess the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and overall contribution of submitted manuscripts.
JNphi follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and peer-review best practice, including the principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
1. Scope of Peer Review
Manuscripts submitted to JNphi are first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether they are:
- within the aims and scope of the journal;
- appropriate for the relevant article category;
- sufficiently original and academically relevant;
- prepared according to the journal's Author Guidelines;
- suitable for further scholarly evaluation.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic editorial or formatting requirements may be returned to the authors before external peer review.
Editorial screening does not constitute a final publication decision. Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment may be sent for external peer review.
2. Peer-Review Model
JNphi uses an external peer-review process.
All contributions selected for peer review are normally evaluated by two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript. This is consistent with the journal's Author Guidelines.
For invited articles, the journal may use one reviewer, as stated in the Author Guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief may determine the appropriate level of review for invited contributions according to the nature and purpose of the article.
The journal may seek additional reviews when the reviewers' recommendations are substantially divergent, when specialist expertise is required, or when the editor considers an additional independent assessment necessary.
3. Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their:
- subject-matter expertise;
- academic qualifications and research experience;
- familiarity with the relevant scholarly literature;
- ability to provide an independent and objective assessment;
- absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Whenever possible, reviewers are selected from institutions and research groups independent of the authors.
Authors may be asked to suggest potential reviewers; however, the final selection and appointment of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the journal's editors. Suggested reviewers are not automatically appointed.
The journal does not use reviewers who have a known conflict of interest with the authors or manuscript unless the conflict has been assessed and determined not to compromise the integrity of the review.
4. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.
A reviewer should decline the invitation if they:
- have a personal or professional relationship with an author that could affect objectivity;
- have recently collaborated with an author;
- work at the same institution as an author;
- have a financial, academic, or other interest that could influence their judgment;
- believe that they cannot provide an impartial assessment.
Editors may replace a reviewer if a conflict of interest becomes apparent during the review process.
5. Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to JNphi are treated as confidential documents during the editorial and peer-review process.
Reviewers must not:
- disclose the manuscript or its contents to third parties;
- share the manuscript without permission from the editor;
- use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage;
- contact authors directly about the manuscript unless explicitly authorized by the editor.
The confidentiality of the peer-review process must be maintained before and after publication.
6. Reviewer Responsibilities
A reviewer should assess, where applicable:
- originality and significance of the contribution;
- relevance to the scope of JNphi;
- clarity and coherence of the argument;
- theoretical and conceptual contribution;
- methodological appropriateness and rigor;
- accuracy and adequacy of the interpretation of findings;
- engagement with relevant literature;
- clarity of presentation;
- ethical considerations;
- adequacy and accuracy of references;
- overall contribution to neurophilosophy and/or the relevant interdisciplinary field.
Reviewers should distinguish between major substantive concerns and minor editorial issues.
Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewer comments should be respectful and directed toward improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript.
7. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. They do not constitute the final editorial decision.
The editor may accept, modify, or reject a reviewer's recommendation based on the complete evaluation of the manuscript, the other reviewers' reports, the journal's editorial standards, and the manuscript's contribution to the field.
8. Editorial Decision-Making
Editorial decisions are based primarily on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological or conceptual rigor, clarity, and contribution to the field.
Editorial decisions are not based on an author's nationality, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political position, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript or a particular review time.
9. Revision and Resubmission
When revisions are requested, authors should address the reviewers' comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
If reviewers identify substantial unresolved concerns, further revision or additional peer review may be requested.
10. Divergent Reviewer Recommendations
When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:
- request clarification from one or more reviewers;
- seek an additional independent review;
- evaluate the manuscript and reviewer reports directly;
- request a revision before reaching a final decision.
The existence of differing reviewer recommendations does not require the editor to follow a majority decision.
11. Special and Invited Contributions
Invited contributions remain subject to editorial quality control.
As specified in the Author Guidelines, invited articles may be evaluated by one reviewer rather than the standard two independent reviewers.
Special issues, thematic collections, and invited contributions remain under the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and must meet the journal's scholarly and ethical standards.
Guest editors, where applicable, do not have unrestricted authority over the final publication decision.
12. Article Types and Peer Review
The level and form of evaluation may vary according to the nature of the contribution.
Research articles, review articles, theoretical contributions, and other scholarly manuscripts requiring substantive academic assessment are subject to the journal's peer-review process.
Editorial correspondence, book reviews, commentaries, letters, and other invited or specialized contributions may be evaluated according to their article type and editorial requirements.
Where an article type is not subject to the standard external peer-review process, this will be determined by the editorial team according to the journal's section policy.
13. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts submitted to JNphi.
Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, manuscript text, figures, tables, reviewer reports, or other confidential material to generative artificial intelligence systems or other external automated tools where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content and recommendations of their reports.
Editors and reviewers should not use generative AI to replace their independent scholarly judgment.
Any permitted use of automated or AI-assisted tools must not compromise manuscript confidentiality, reviewer independence, or the integrity of the editorial process.
14. Editorial and Reviewer Ethics
JNphi expects editors and reviewers to follow recognized standards of publication ethics.
Potential concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research or publication misconduct may be investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Where necessary, the journal may request clarification from authors, reviewers, institutions, or other relevant parties.
15. Appeals
Authors who believe that a significant error or misunderstanding has affected an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.
Appeals should identify the specific grounds for the appeal and explain why the decision may have resulted from a substantive factual or procedural error.
An appeal is not intended to provide an opportunity to introduce a substantially different manuscript or simply to dispute a decision because the authors disagree with the reviewers.
The Editor-in-Chief will consider legitimate appeals and may seek an additional independent assessment where appropriate.
The decision following an appeal is final.
16. Corrections and Post-Publication Issues
Peer review does not end the journal's responsibility for the integrity of the published scholarly record.
If a significant error, ethical concern, or other issue is identified after publication, JNphi may take appropriate action, including publication of a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, or retraction, where warranted.
Post-publication concerns will be handled according to the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable COPE guidance.
17. Transparency of the Peer-Review Process
JNphi is committed to transparency in its editorial and peer-review practices.
The journal clearly states:
- that manuscripts selected for review undergo external peer review;
- that two independent reviewers are normally used;
- that invited articles may be evaluated by one reviewer;
- that reviewers are selected according to subject expertise and independence;
- that reviewer recommendations are advisory;
- that the final publication decision rests with the editorial team;
- that confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements apply throughout the review process.
Peer-review reports are not routinely published with articles unless the journal adopts a separate policy stating otherwise.
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors except where the journal explicitly adopts an open peer-review procedure for a particular article or section.
18. Editorial Independence
JNphi's peer-review and publication decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations.
Editors are expected to exercise independent editorial judgment and to avoid conflicts of interest.
No author, reviewer, editorial board member, sponsor, advertiser, or other external party may improperly influence the editorial decision-making process.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the integrity of the journal's editorial process.
19. Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Review
JNphi recognizes peer review as a collaborative scholarly process intended to improve the quality, reliability, and contribution of published research.
The journal is committed to maintaining a peer-review system that is:
Independent — Fair — Confidential — Constructive — Transparent — Academically Rigorous
The journal periodically reviews its editorial and peer-review procedures and may update this policy in accordance with developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, and international best practices.
Policy version: 2026
Journal: Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi)
