Reviewer Guidelines
JM reviewers provide constructive, evidence based feedback to strengthen memory research.
Use these guidelines to deliver clear and actionable reviews.
Key areas to assess
Study design
Confirm the design matches the research question.
Methods clarity
Tasks and procedures are described in enough detail.
Statistical rigor
Analyses are appropriate and transparent.
Results alignment
Conclusions reflect the reported results.
Limitations
Authors acknowledge constraints and bias.
Ethics
Approvals and consent are documented.
Be specific and balanced
Anchor comments to sections or figures and recognize strengths alongside concerns.
Protect trust
Do not share manuscripts or data and disclose conflicts immediately.
Concise, evidence based reviews accelerate decisions and improve author revisions.
Focus on design and statistics
Evaluate whether analyses match hypotheses and whether confounding or bias is addressed adequately.
Balance critique and strengths
Highlight contributions while offering specific recommendations for improvement.
Confidentiality and conflicts
Do not share manuscripts or data, and disclose conflicts immediately to the editor.
Meet deadlines
Submit reviews within agreed timelines or notify the editor if delays arise.
Focus on evidence
High quality reviews evaluate design, analysis, and interpretation with specific, actionable feedback.
Protect confidentiality
Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use data and should declare conflicts immediately.
Meet agreed deadlines
On time reviews keep decisions fair and support efficient publication.
Strengthen the evidence base
High quality reviews improve the clarity and reliability of memory research and help the field build on solid evidence. Specific, actionable feedback is more valuable than general criticism.
Provide actionable guidance
Actionable feedback helps authors improve manuscripts and supports the overall quality of memory research.
Evaluate methods first
Focus on design, analysis, and interpretation rather than author reputation to maintain fairness.
Avoid bias
Evaluate the work on methods and evidence rather than author reputation or affiliation.
Highlight strengths
Balanced reviews that note strengths and weaknesses improve author engagement and revision quality.
Support claims
Base critiques on data and methods to keep reviews constructive.
Cite locations
Refer to specific sections to speed revisions.
Point to tables
Refer to specific tables or figures when raising concerns.
Reference evidence
Cite evidence for key concerns.
Become a JM Reviewer
Help evaluate memory research and improve the quality of published evidence.
