Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for peer review. Suitable submissions are then assigned to an associate editor knowledgeable about the submission’s topic. The associate editor then solicits reviews from a selection of independent experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology.

The review period is expected to take around four weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Based on the reviewer reports the associate editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

The journal does not dictate whether submissions are reviewed in a double-blind, single-blind, or open fashion. The authors choose whether to blind their submission files, which will dictate whether the reviewer can identify them during the review process. Equally, the reviewer will be given the option to provide their name and affiliation within their review feedback, which will be accessible to the author.

Reviewer Guidelines

After accepting the invitation to complete the review of an article, reviewers will be asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines, along with a quantitative score on the topics of: Interest; Quality; Originality; Overall score. The reviewer will also have the option to enter their name into the review form, allowing the review to be non-blind (optional):

1. Originality:
Does the manuscript contain original information that progresses knowledge on this subject? Are there original findings, or do conceptual arguments provide a somewhat new perspective on established thinking?

2. Abstract/Summary and Introduction:
Does the Abstract (Summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article? Is the introduction to the subject matter clearly and concisely stated?

3. Methodology:
Overall, is the methodology appropriate for the subject matter being examined in the submission, with no significant weaknesses?

4. Cohesion and thoroughness:
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results? Does the message of the paper follow logically from the methods and analyses?

5. Writing quality and referencing:
Is the language acceptable? Do you find the writing to be clear and structured in a logical manner? Is adequate reference made to other work in the field? Are the literature review and discussion sufficiently thorough, or are relevant findings or views missing?

6. Ethical approval:
Are the necessary statements of ethical approval by a relevant authority present? Where humans have participated in research, has informed consent been declared.

7. Confidential Input:
Are there any confidential remarks about the piece which the editors should consider? These will NOT be shared with the author.

Competing Interests

To ensure that all publications are as open as possible all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could appear to compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. This process is designed to reinforce the readers' trust in the review process. The Competing Interests guidelines can be viewed here.

Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP)

The Journal of Cognition is a signatory to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines suggested by the Center for Open Science. We expect authors to be forthcoming about disclosing details about their research, to pre-emptively share data and materials when possible, and to take all reasonable steps to assist other researchers in replicating or verifying their work. Specifically, we endorse the eight TOP guidelines at the following levels:

1. Citation standards, level 3: Citation of articles is routine and well-formulated. Similar standards can be applied to citation of data, code, and materials to recognize and credit these as original intellectual contributions. Level 1 recommends citation standards, Level 2 requires adherence to citation standards, and Level 3 requires and enforces adherence to citation standards.

2, 3, 4. Data, Analytic Methods (Code), and Research Materials Transparency, level 2: The policy of the Journal of Cognition is to publish papers with data, methods used in the analysis, and materials used to conduct the research that are clearly and precisely documented and are maximally available to any researcher for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedure. However, we understand that complete disclosure is sometimes impossible. If your data, analytic method, and/or materials are not publicly available, please state why not explicitly in your Author Note.

5. Design and analysis transparency, level 1: The policy of the Journal of Cognition is to publish papers where authors follow standards for disclosing key aspects of the research design and data analysis. Authors are encouraged to review the standards available for many research applications from http://www.equator-network.org/ and use those that are relevant for the reported research applications. For much of the work we publish, the most relevant standard is the APA's Journal Article Reporting Standards.

6, 7. Preregistration of studies and analysis plans, level 1: The Journal of Cognition supports, but does not require, authors indicating whether the conducted research was preregistered in an independent, institutional registry (e.g., http://openscienceframework.org/). Preregistration of studies involves registering the study design, variables, and treatment conditions prior to conducting the research. Including an analysis plan involves specification of sequence of analyses or the statistical model that will be reported.

8. Replication, level 3: The policy of the Journal of Cognition is to encourage submission of replication studies, particularly of research published in this journal. Replication studies are reviewed in two stages following the Registered Reports format. In particular, the first stage of review is conducted prior to the data being collected or, for existing data sets, before the outcomes are observed.

We commit to reviewing our TOP commitment periodically and updating it to keep current with the best practices for encouraging healthy transparency in cognitive psychology research.

Section Policies

Review Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Research Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Registered Reports

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Data reports

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Material Development Reports

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Methods notes

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Commentaries

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links