Editors Guidelines
JM editors uphold research quality, fairness, and timely decisions.
These guidelines support consistent editorial practice across memory science submissions.
Core responsibilities
Scope assessment
Confirm fit with the journal and special issue themes.
Reviewer selection
Choose reviewers with methodological and topic expertise.
Decision clarity
Summarize key reasons for decisions in letters.
Timeliness
Manage review timelines and follow up when needed.
Ethics escalation
Flag conflicts or integrity concerns promptly.
Documentation
Record decisions and rationale for transparency.
Author communication
Maintain professional and constructive tone.
Guide priority changes
Focus revision requests on issues that affect validity and interpretation.
Assess objectively
Appeals should be evaluated using evidence and may require additional review.
Consistent editorial standards protect the quality and credibility of JM.
When to seek additional review
For advanced neuroimaging or computational models, consider inviting specialist reviewers to assess methodological rigor.
Provide actionable summaries
Summarize key issues clearly so authors understand what is required for acceptance.
Blend methods and topic expertise
Aim for reviewer teams that cover both theoretical context and technical methods.
Maintain momentum
Follow up on overdue reviews to keep decisions timely and fair.
Balance novelty and rigor
Editors assess whether manuscripts advance memory science while meeting methodological standards. Clear judgment supports fair decisions and consistent quality.
Guide authors clearly
Decision letters should summarize strengths, prioritize revisions, and provide specific direction so authors understand next steps.
Maintain momentum
Prompt reviewer follow ups and timely decisions protect author experience and keep the journal responsive.
Support fair decisions
Editors are expected to balance innovation with methodological rigor and to guide reviewers toward constructive feedback. A brief but clear decision summary helps authors understand next steps.
Apply consistent criteria
Use the same evaluation framework across manuscripts to ensure fair decisions and maintain journal credibility.
Manage potential bias
If a conflict is identified, recuse and alert the editorial office so an alternate editor can manage the decision.
Know when to ask
Seek guidance when ethical or methodological questions are outside your expertise.
Apply standards
Use the same criteria across manuscripts to support fairness.
Summarize decisions
Clear decisions reduce revision cycles.
Join the JM Editorial Community
Contribute expertise that strengthens memory research, review quality, and publishing integrity.
