Reviewer Guidelines

1. Overview of Reviewed Contributions
At Computational Psychology, most manuscript types undergo open peer review, including Research Articles, Brief Reports, Reviews, Theories, and Methodological Tutorials. Perspectives and Correspondences are typically by invitation, with open peer review applying to Perspectives but not to Correspondences (unless the editorial team decides otherwise).

We value detailed, constructive evaluations from reviewers. Should any questions arise about the peer review process, please refer to the information below or contact our editorial office.

2. Initial Assessment and Editorial Criteria
2.1 Editorial Screening
All submissions are first assessed by the editorial team. Papers likely to meet the journal’s rigorous standards are sent for external open peer review. Submissions that do not align with our scope or show insufficient advancement in computational psychology may be declined without external review. In these cases, editorial feedback may reference specialist opinions.

2.2 Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are chosen based on:

  • Expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter or methodology.
  • Reputation for timely, thorough, and constructive feedback.
  • Ability to address potential technical or statistical concerns.

Computational Psychology embraces diversity and encourages inclusive reviewer suggestions from authors, aiming for a broad representation of regions, genders, and professional backgrounds.

3. The Review Process
3.1 Principles and Outcomes
Manuscripts considered for external review typically receive feedback from two or three reviewers, though more may be involved for specialized topics. Based on reviewer evaluations, editors may:

  1. Accept (with or without minor revisions).
  2. Request revisions to address specific concerns.
  3. Reject, suggesting potential resubmission after substantial changes.
  4. Reject outright due to major technical flaws or insufficient novelty.

While reviewers may recommend a course of action, editorial decisions balance all perspectives, taking into account the arguments’ strength rather than a simple majority view.

3.2 Open Peer Review
Computational Psychology uses a two-step review mechanism:

  1. Double-blind assessment: Authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review.
  2. Open review publication: After acceptance, the peer review reports—and the reviewers’ names—are published alongside the article.

We believe this transparency fosters accountability and helps early-career researchers learn about the review process.

4. Writing Your Reviewer Report
4.1 Content and Structure
Your report should focus on:

  • Key findings: A brief summary of what stands out in the study.
  • Validity: Assessment of experimental design, methodology, data quality, and potential flaws.
  • Originality & significance: Are the findings new, impactful, and relevant to computational psychology?
  • Data & methodology clarity: Evaluate whether the methods are explained sufficiently to be replicable.
  • Statistical analysis: Confirm that all error bars, p-values, and uncertainties are accurately reported.
  • Interpretation & conclusions: Consider whether the conclusions are robust and logically derived from the data.
  • Further improvements: Suggest additional experiments, analyses, or clarifications.
  • References & context: Check if references are appropriate, comprehensive, and properly cited.
  • Inclusivity & tone: Flag any problematic language or content inconsistent with our commitment to ethical standards and scientific integrity.

While you can include confidential remarks to the editors, the main content of your review should be consistent with the messages you convey to the authors.

4.2 Tone and Detail
We encourage clear, actionable feedback. If you recommend rejection, please highlight the major weaknesses so authors can understand the basis of your decision and improve for future submissions. Constructive criticism delivered with clarity will strengthen the manuscript and support authors’ development.

5. Use of AI Tools in Peer Review
Consistent with our AI Authorship and Usage Policies, Computational Psychology does not permit uploading manuscripts to generative AI tools, as they may contain sensitive or proprietary information. If you employ AI software to assist with limited aspects of your evaluation (e.g., grammar suggestions for your written report), please:

  • Use it responsibly and keep manuscript data confidential.
  • Clearly declare any AI assistance in your reviewer comments.

Remember that you, as the reviewer, remain accountable for the accuracy and viewpoints expressed.

6. Timing and Anonymity
6.1 Review Deadlines
We strive for timely editorial decisions. Reviewers are asked to submit their reports within the agreed period (usually two to three weeks). If you anticipate delays, please inform the editorial office so we can update the authors.

6.2 Reviewer Identity
During the double-blind review phase, your identity remains confidential. Once an article is accepted and enters open review, your reviewer name will be published alongside your review report, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Should you prefer to disclose your identity to authors earlier, please notify the handling editor. We discourage authors from attempting to discover reviewer identities without permission.

7. Post-Publication Commentary and Corrections
7.1 Post-Publication Discourse
Computational Psychology encourages robust, collegial discussions of published content, including formal comments (e.g., Correspondence letters) or follow-up studies (e.g., additional Brief Reports). If authors submit a direct challenge or clarification regarding a published article, it may undergo peer review at the editorial team’s discretion.

7.2 Corrections
Published corrections, such as Errata or Expressions of Concern, may also be peer-reviewed if deemed technically or ethically complex. Our goal is to maintain accurate scientific records for the computational psychology community.