For Reviewers
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers should promptly notify the editor of any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, substantial overlap with previously published work, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate citation practices, or other potential breaches of research and publication ethics.
Reviewers should identify relevant literature that is essential to the evaluation of the manuscript. However, reviewers should not request citations primarily to increase their own citation count, visibility, or academic influence.
The identity of reviewers must remain confidential unless the journal explicitly operates under an open peer-review model or the reviewer has been authorized by the journal to disclose their identity.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to evaluate the manuscript independently, confidentially, objectively, constructively, and within the timeframe specified by the journal.
Criteria for Publication
The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNφphi) evaluates manuscripts according to standards of scientific and scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, significance, clarity, ethical integrity, and relevance to the journal's scope.
Reviewers are asked to consider the following criteria:
-
Scientific and Scholarly Significance: The manuscript should make a meaningful contribution to its field and, where appropriate, advance, refine, challenge, or expand existing knowledge and understanding.
-
Originality: Research articles should present original work that has not been previously published elsewhere. Manuscripts that lack sufficient novelty or provide only a minor incremental contribution may not be suitable for publication.
-
Quality of Review Articles: Review articles should provide a comprehensive and critical synthesis of recent developments in a defined area, place the literature within a broader context, and offer meaningful scholarly insights rather than merely summarize existing studies.
-
Relevance and Broad Interest: Manuscripts should be relevant to the scope of JNφphi and, where appropriate, present their findings and arguments in a manner accessible to readers from related disciplines.
-
Methodological and Ethical Rigor: Research should employ appropriate and clearly described methods and comply with recognized scientific, ethical, and research-integrity standards.
-
Clarity and Organization: The manuscript should communicate its objectives, methods, findings, arguments, interpretations, and conclusions clearly and coherently.
-
Evidence and Documentation: Claims and conclusions should be appropriately supported by evidence, data, reasoning, and relevant scholarly literature.
-
Contribution to Future Research: Where appropriate, manuscripts should identify implications, unanswered questions, or directions for future research.
Specific Questions for Reviewers
Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following questions when evaluating a manuscript:
-
Originality and significance: Does the manuscript present original ideas, findings, interpretations, or analyses that are of sufficient significance and potential interest to an international scholarly audience?
-
Accuracy: Are the factual statements, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions accurate and adequately supported by the evidence presented?
-
Evidence: Does the manuscript provide sufficient evidence or documentation for its principal claims? Are important sources, data, arguments, or alternative explanations missing?
-
Engagement with the literature: Does the manuscript demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the relevant literature? Are important and recent publications appropriately considered?
-
Title and abstract: Are the title and abstract accurate, informative, and representative of the content of the manuscript?
-
Research methodology: Are the research methods, study design, analytical procedures, and statistical approaches appropriate for addressing the stated research questions?
-
Evidence and conclusions: Do the data and evidence support the interpretations and conclusions presented by the authors?
-
Objectives: Are the aims, research questions, hypotheses, or central arguments clearly stated and adequately addressed?
-
Interpretation: Are the interpretations balanced, logically reasoned, and consistent with the evidence? Are alternative interpretations appropriately considered where relevant?
-
Length and presentation: Is the manuscript appropriately concise while retaining all information necessary for understanding and evaluating the work?
-
References: Are the references relevant, accurate, current, and sufficient to support the manuscript? Does the manuscript avoid unnecessary or excessive self-citation?
-
Implications: Does the manuscript identify meaningful implications for future research, theory, methodology, clinical practice, or broader understanding of the subject where appropriate?
Reviewers should consider these criteria in conjunction with the nature and type of the submitted manuscript. Different article categories—including original research articles, reviews, theoretical papers, perspectives, commentaries, and other contributions—may require different evaluation criteria.
Manuscripts that are technically sound but do not meet the journal's standards of originality, significance, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, or relevance may not be suitable for publication. When recommending revision, reviewers should provide specific, constructive, and actionable recommendations that can help the authors address the identified concerns.
Editorial Decision Options
Reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation to the editor based on their assessment of the manuscript. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editors.
φ Accept
This recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript is suitable for publication and requires no substantive changes, or only minor editorial or presentation changes.
φ Minor Revision
This recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript is fundamentally sound and suitable for publication but requires limited revisions, clarification, correction, or improvement before acceptance.
φ Major Revision
This recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript has substantial issues that may be addressable through revision, such as methodological clarification, additional analysis, substantial restructuring, strengthening of evidence, or improvement of interpretation.
φ Reject
This recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision, including major deficiencies in methodology, insufficient evidence, inadequate originality or significance, serious problems of interpretation, substantial mismatch with the journal's scope, or confirmed ethical or research-integrity concerns.
Comments to Authors
Reviewers should make their comments to authors as clear, specific, respectful, constructive, and comprehensive as possible. Comments should focus on the manuscript and should provide actionable recommendations wherever possible.
Reviewers should distinguish between major and minor concerns and explain the reasoning behind their recommendations. Personal criticism of authors, dismissive language, discriminatory comments, or statements unrelated to the scholarly content of the manuscript should not be included in the review.
Confidential Comments to the Editor
Where the journal provides a confidential comments section, reviewers may communicate concerns directly to the editor regarding matters such as potential conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, serious methodological problems, or other issues that may not be appropriate to communicate directly to the authors.
Confidential comments to the editor should remain professional, evidence-based, and consistent with the reviewer's overall assessment of the manuscript.
