Journal of Model Based Research · ISSN 2643-2811 · Open Access Pub
For Reviewers
The question is not whether the model is true. It is whether the manuscript has earned what it says the model shows.
Reviewing model-based work means reading a chain of reasoning: a system, a representation of it, evidence brought to that representation, and a conclusion drawn from it. This page sets out what the Journal of Model Based Research asks you to look at.
The assessment
What a review of a model looks at
Start from the contribution the manuscript claims, and assess the manuscript against that claim. A theoretical paper and an applied one are not held to the same evidence; each is held to the evidence its own claim requires.
- Assumptions
- Are they stated, and is the reader able to see which conclusions depend on which assumption?
- Specification
- Is the model described well enough to be reconstructed, including parameters, data sources and procedure?
- Fit to evidence
- Where the model meets data, is the procedure appropriate and reported, and are its limits acknowledged?
- Evaluation
- Is the evidence offered for the model's behavior the right kind of evidence for what is claimed?
- Uncertainty
- Is the range around the result reported, and does the conclusion respect it?
- Inference
- Do the stated conclusions follow from the model, and do they stop where the model stops?
- Reporting
- Are code, data, software versions and settings available or explained, so the work can be checked?
Matching the test to the claim
Novelty, empirical confirmation, predictive accuracy and practical deployment are each appropriate tests for some manuscripts and not for others. A methodological formalization, a conceptual model, a derivation or a review can each make a full contribution without any of them. Apply the test the manuscript's own claim calls for.
The report
Writing the review
Reviews that help are specific. Separate what would change your assessment from what would improve the paper, and point to the section, equation or figure you mean.
Recommendation
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Your recommendation informs that decision; the decision itself rests with the editor.
Tone
Write about the work rather than the authors. A reviewer who explains why an argument does not hold has done more for the field than one who simply rejects it.
Conduct
Confidentiality and competing interests
Confidentiality
A manuscript sent for review is unpublished and confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use its content in your own work.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Competing interests
Decline where you have a recent collaboration, a shared institution, a competing submission or any other interest that could affect your judgment. Tell the editor rather than simply not replying.
Double-blind manuscripts
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Assisted review
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Where to go next
The pages below hold the journal's policies, the requirements authors work to, and the scientific remit a manuscript is assessed against.
Aims and Scope Instructions for Authors For Editors About the Journal