For Reviewers
Your expert judgement is how convergent neuroscience holds itself to a high standard. Here is what we ask, and how the review works from your side.
Why your review matters
Reviewers help authors and editors distinguish work that genuinely advances the field from work that does not yet. We ask you to assess novelty and methodological rigour — and, distinctively for JCNS, how convincingly a study achieves convergence across levels of analysis.
JCNS exists to publish research that integrates two or more levels of the brain — molecular, cellular, circuit, systems, behavioural, computational — into a single, coherent account. That editorial thesis shapes what we ask you to weigh: alongside the usual standards of significance and rigour, please judge whether the levels in a manuscript actually speak to one another, or merely sit side by side.
Review is confidential, constructive and evidence-based. You are advising the editor; the final decision rests with the editorial team. Above all, write the review you would find fair and useful to receive.
The review, from your side
Invitation
You receive an invitation with the title and abstract so you can judge fit with your expertise and availability.
Accept or decline
Respond promptly. Declare any competing interest, and decline if one exists or the manuscript falls outside your expertise — a fast decline helps as much as an acceptance.
Read & assess
Evaluate the manuscript against the criteria below, keeping all material strictly confidential and your comments specific and actionable.
Submit recommendation
Provide comments to the authors, confidential comments to the editor, and an overall recommendation (accept, minor/major revision, or reject).
Re-review revisions
If the authors revise, we may invite you to check whether your points were addressed. Focus on the changes rather than re-opening settled issues.
What we ask you to assess
- Significance & novelty — does the work address an important question and add something new to the field?
- Methodological rigour — are the design, sample, analyses and statistics sound, reproducible and appropriate to the claims?
- Convergence & integration across levels — do the levels of analysis genuinely inform one another, and are the cross-level inferences justified rather than asserted?
- Clarity — are the argument, figures and writing clear enough for the intended readership, and are the conclusions supported by the data?
- Ethics & data availability — are ethics approvals, consent, and data- and code-availability statements present, and is reporting transparent and complete?
Confidentiality & competing interests
Manuscripts under review are confidential: do not share, distribute, cite or use them, and do not enlist a colleague or tool without the editor's agreement. Declare any competing interest — financial, professional or personal — that could bias your assessment, and decline the invitation if one exists. If you are uncertain whether something counts as a conflict, ask the editorial office rather than proceed. JCNS follows COPE guidance on peer-review conduct.
See the full publication ethics & editorial standards.
How long a review takes
Indicative only. We typically ask reviewers to return a report within N weeks of accepting an invitation. This figure is provisional and pending confirmation by the editorial office; the exact window will be stated in your invitation.
If you need more time, tell us early — a brief, agreed extension is far better for authors than a rushed or late report.
Sign in to review
Invited reviewers manage invitations, access manuscripts and submit reports through our online reviewer panel. New to JCNS and interested in reviewing? You are welcome to introduce yourself to the editorial office.