Basic Information
We appreciate the time and effort our reviewers put into their critiques and greatly value their expertise. At JAD, we only publish a limited number of articles that are submitted, and it is our hope that we fill the slots with papers of the highest quality, novelty, and rigor. We try to obtain a minimum of two reviewers per article and give reviewers two weeks to complete reviews. Decisions of acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript is the final responsibility of the editor.
- Reviews should be constructive and avoid personal comments.
- Reviews should be returned within the time period specified. If an extension is required, please inform the Editorial Office at the time of the request (preferably) or as soon as known.
- Reviewer identity is anonymous and will not be revealed to authors.
- Manuscripts under review should not be shared with any colleagues without permission of the editor.
- Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication (online or print) without the authors’ specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).
- Use of artificial intelligence (AI)/large language models (LLMs) to prepare or generate a review report is prohibited due to confidentiality (see Sage's policy here: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/using-ai-in-peer-review-and-publishing#pt3)
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are asked to excuse themselves from reviewing a submission if a conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation, if they have collaborated with the authors in the past three years, if they have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or if they have a history of personal differences with the author(s). A reviewer who has a conflict but feels that it does not prevent their making a proper judgment must disclose to the Editor the nature of the conflict.
Review Assistance
JAD encourages reviewers to enlist the assistance of colleagues, postdoctoral fellows, or graduate students in the review of submitted articles. The primary reviewer must independently evaluate the manuscript and agree with the report filed. Conflict of interest and confidentiality apply to both reviewers. To receive appropriate credit, the name of the co-reviewer should be forwarded to the Editorial Office ([email protected]).
Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium
JAD is a member of the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium. The Consortium is an alliance of neuroscience journals that have agreed to accept manuscript reviews from each other. Reviewers for Consortium journals are required to allow the content of their reviews to be forwarded if the authors resubmit their manuscript to another Consortium journal. All Consortium journals agree to keep reviewers anonymous to authors. Reviewers will be offered the option of whether they wish to permit their identity to be revealed to other Consortium journals. Additional information can be found here: http://nprc.incf.org/
More Information
For more information regarding the peer review process, please visit the IOS Press Reviewer Guidelines.
