Editorial Policies
JM maintains clear editorial policies to protect research integrity and reviewer trust.
Policies apply to all submissions and guide decisions throughout peer review.
Standards applied across submissions
Peer review
Double blind review supports unbiased evaluation.
Authorship
All authors must meet contribution standards.
Conflicts of interest
Disclosures are required and updated as needed.
Data transparency
Data availability statements are required.
Ethics approvals
IRB and consent documentation are verified.
Corrections
Errors are addressed through formal updates when required.
Appeals
Decisions can be appealed with evidence based rationale.
Misconduct
Concerns are documented and investigated when needed.
Checks during evaluation
Similarity screening
Manuscripts are screened for originality.
Reviewer selection
Reviewers are chosen for expertise and lack of conflicts.
Ethics review
Sensitive studies receive additional scrutiny.
Image integrity
Figures may be checked for manipulation.
Data statements
Access conditions must be clear and accurate.
Documentation
Editorial decisions are recorded for transparency.
Preparing an evidence based appeal
Address reviewer comments directly and provide supporting analyses when appealing decisions.
Protecting trust
Editors and reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential and use data only for review.
Managing updates
Corrections or retractions follow formal review to preserve the scholarly record.
Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, not funding source or payment status.
Double blind expectations
JM uses double blind review where author identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors. This supports impartial evaluation of memory research.
Manage conflicts of interest
Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose conflicts promptly. If a conflict arises, the editorial office will assign alternate reviewers or editors.
How concerns are handled
Concerns about integrity or authorship are reviewed by the editorial office and documented for transparency. The journal may contact relevant institutions when needed.
Correcting the record
Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions follow formal review to preserve the scholarly record and inform readers clearly.
Document changes
Requests to add or remove authors after submission require written confirmation from all authors.
Ensure clarity
Data statements must describe access conditions and any restrictions on reuse.
Submit evidence
Appeals should address reviewer concerns directly and provide supporting analysis or clarification.
Protect submissions
Editors and reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential and avoid using unpublished data.
Handle concerns promptly
Potential misconduct is documented and may involve contacting institutions when needed.
Preserve the record
Corrections and retractions follow formal review and are clearly labeled for readers.
Maintain consistent standards
Editorial policies protect the credibility of JM by defining expectations for review, disclosure, and corrections. Transparent processes help authors understand decision pathways and reduce confusion during review. When concerns arise, the editorial office documents actions and communicates outcomes clearly to protect the scholarly record.
Document decisions
Editors document decisions and reviewer feedback to ensure a transparent record of evaluation. This supports consistency across submissions and helps resolve concerns if disputes arise.
Ensure consistent handling
Standardized policies help editors apply the same criteria across submissions and improve trust in the editorial process. Clear documentation also simplifies response when questions or disputes arise.
Maintain transparency
Funding and conflict disclosures should be updated if circumstances change during review.
Act promptly
Notify the editorial office quickly if errors are discovered after publication so corrections can be issued.
Handle concerns carefully
Allegations of misconduct are evaluated with documented evidence and may require communication with institutions or funders.
Provide evidence
Appeals should include specific references to reviewer comments and supporting evidence to justify reconsideration.
Communicate changes
If authorship or funding changes during review, notify the editorial office so disclosures remain accurate.
Notify the office
Inform the editorial office if material errors are found after publication so corrections can be processed quickly.
Maintain documentation
Document decisions and communications to preserve a clear audit trail.
Maintain transparency
Clear documentation protects authors and readers.
Stay aligned
Consistent practice supports trust.
Need Support From JM?
For policy, submission, or editorial questions, contact [email protected].
