Reviewer Guidelines

Cortex (Innovation and Discovery) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer-review process. Peer reviewers play an important role in maintaining the scholarly quality and integrity of publications.

These guidelines provide general guidance for reviewers of manuscripts submitted to Cortex journals. Individual journals may have additional requirements according to their disciplinary scope.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The primary purpose of peer review is to help the editorial team assess the scholarly quality, originality, validity, and relevance of a manuscript and to assist authors in improving their work.

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript.

The reviewer should assess the manuscript on its scholarly merits rather than on personal, institutional, geographical, or other characteristics of the authors.

2. Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise.

  • Whether they have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested period.

  • Whether they have any conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their assessment.

  • Whether they can provide an objective and independent evaluation.

If a reviewer does not have sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript or has a significant conflict of interest, they should decline the invitation and, where appropriate, inform the editor of the reason.

Reviewers should not accept a review simply because the topic is interesting if they cannot provide an informed assessment.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents.

Reviewers should:

  • Treat the manuscript and all associated information as confidential.

  • Not share the manuscript or review materials with others without permission from the editor.

  • Not discuss the manuscript or its contents with the authors or other individuals.

  • Not use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal research or professional advantage.

  • Not retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review, except where permitted by the journal's review system or editorial policy.

If a reviewer wishes to involve a qualified colleague or trainee in the review, they should obtain permission from the editor before doing so and ensure that the individual understands the confidentiality requirements.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

A conflict may arise from, for example:

  • A recent collaboration with one or more authors.

  • A close professional or personal relationship with an author.

  • A direct academic or professional competition.

  • A financial or commercial interest related to the research.

  • A strong personal interest that could affect impartiality.

  • Knowledge of the identity of the authors in a review process intended to be double-blind, where this creates a conflict.

If a conflict prevents an objective assessment, the reviewer should decline the review.

When uncertain, reviewers are encouraged to discuss the matter confidentially with the editor before proceeding.

5. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript independently and should not attempt to identify or contact the authors in a double-blind review process.

Reviewers should not request that authors cite the reviewer's own publications unless such citations are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Suggestions for additional citations should be based on scholarly relevance rather than the purpose of increasing the reviewer's citation count or visibility.

6. General Evaluation of the Manuscript

Reviewers should consider the following broad questions:

Relevance and Scope

  • Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of the journal?

  • Is the topic relevant to the journal's readership?

Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript provide an original contribution?

  • Is the research question meaningful?

  • Does the manuscript add new knowledge, insight, methodology, evidence, or interpretation?

Literature and Context

  • Is the relevant literature adequately covered?

  • Does the manuscript appropriately explain how the work relates to previous research?

  • Are important and relevant recent studies considered?

Methodology

  • Are the research methods appropriate for the stated objectives?

  • Are the methods sufficiently described?

  • Is the research design logically sound?

  • Are the data, samples, datasets, or experimental procedures appropriate?

  • Are statistical or computational methods appropriately applied?

Results

  • Are the results clearly presented?

  • Are the analyses appropriate?

  • Do the results support the stated conclusions?

  • Are tables and figures accurate and useful?

Discussion

  • Are the findings interpreted appropriately?

  • Does the discussion relate the findings to previous research?

  • Are limitations adequately acknowledged?

  • Are claims appropriately supported by evidence?

Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion follow from the results?

  • Does it appropriately reflect the contribution and limitations of the study?

Presentation

  • Is the manuscript logically organized?

  • Is the language sufficiently clear?

  • Are figures, tables, equations, and references presented appropriately?

  • Are there significant grammatical, formatting, or structural problems that affect understanding?

7. Research Integrity and Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical concerns, including:

  • Plagiarism or substantial text reuse.

  • Duplicate or redundant publication.

  • Fabrication or falsification of data.

  • Inappropriate image manipulation.

  • Inadequate ethical approval where required.

  • Lack of informed consent where applicable.

  • Inappropriate treatment of human or animal subjects.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

  • Questionable authorship practices.

  • Suspicious or unverifiable references.

  • Other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers should not directly accuse authors of misconduct in the review unless appropriate. Suspected serious ethical issues should be confidentially reported to the editor with supporting information.

8. Statistical and Technical Assessment

Where relevant to the manuscript, reviewers should assess:

  • Whether the statistical methods are appropriate.

  • Whether sample sizes and experimental designs are adequately justified.

  • Whether statistical assumptions have been considered.

  • Whether uncertainty and variability are appropriately reported.

  • Whether reported significance levels and effect sizes are correctly interpreted.

  • Whether computational experiments are sufficiently described.

  • Whether datasets, algorithms, models, or evaluation procedures are adequately explained.

  • Whether the conclusions are supported by the reported evidence.

Reviewers should distinguish between methodological limitations that require correction and limitations that can reasonably be acknowledged by the authors.

9. Figures, Tables, and Supplementary Material

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • Figures and tables are necessary and relevant.

  • Data are presented accurately.

  • Captions are sufficiently informative.

  • Figures are of adequate quality.

  • Tables and figures do not unnecessarily duplicate the same information.

  • Supplementary material, where provided, supports the manuscript appropriately.

Potentially inappropriate manipulation of figures or images should be reported confidentially to the editor.

10. References

Reviewers should assess whether the references:

  • Are relevant to the manuscript.

  • Adequately represent important prior work.

  • Support the claims for which they are cited.

  • Are reasonably current where recent literature is important.

  • Are not excessively self-referential.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite particular papers merely to increase citation counts.

11. Constructive Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should be professional, specific, and constructive.

A useful review should explain:

  • What the main strengths of the manuscript are.

  • What major issues need to be addressed.

  • What minor issues could improve clarity or presentation.

  • Where additional explanation, analysis, evidence, or references may be needed.

Whenever possible, reviewers should provide specific suggestions for improvement rather than simply stating that something is incorrect or unclear.

Comments should focus on the manuscript and should not contain personal criticism of the authors.

12. Major and Minor Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major and minor issues.

Major Comments

Major comments may concern:

  • Fundamental methodological problems.

  • Insufficient or inappropriate data.

  • Unsupported conclusions.

  • Serious gaps in analysis.

  • Major problems with research design.

  • Significant ethical concerns.

  • Lack of sufficient originality or scholarly contribution.

  • Issues that substantially affect the validity of the findings.

Minor Comments

Minor comments may concern:

  • Grammar or language.

  • Formatting.

  • Typographical errors.

  • Clarification of terminology.

  • Minor omissions.

  • Figure or table presentation.

  • Reference formatting.

13. Recommendation to the Editor

At the end of the review, reviewers should provide an overall recommendation based on the journal's available options.

Typical recommendations may include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review.

The final editorial decision is made by the editor based on the complete peer-review and editorial assessment. A reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not by itself determine the publication outcome.

14. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where the journal's review system provides a separate confidential section, reviewers may communicate matters that should not be shared with the authors.

This section may be used for:

  • Potential ethical concerns.

  • Conflicts of interest.

  • Concerns regarding plagiarism or duplicate publication.

  • Serious methodological issues.

  • Other information that requires confidential editorial consideration.

Substantive criticism of the manuscript should normally also be communicated to the authors in the appropriate review section so that they have an opportunity to respond.

15. Review Timeline

Reviewers should make every reasonable effort to complete reviews within the time specified by the editorial office.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editor as early as possible.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they should decline promptly so that the editorial process is not unnecessarily delayed.

16. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers should exercise caution when using artificial intelligence or generative AI tools during peer review.

Because submitted manuscripts are confidential, reviewers should not upload or disclose unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, confidential data, or other protected material to external AI systems unless the journal expressly permits such use and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

AI tools should not replace the reviewer's own scholarly judgment.

Where AI assistance is permitted, reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of their review.

17. Recognition of Reviewers

Cortex values the contribution of peer reviewers to the scholarly publishing process.

Where applicable, reviewers may receive acknowledgement for their contribution in accordance with the policies of the individual journal.

Reviewer identities will be handled according to the journal's stated peer-review model and confidentiality policy.

18. Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a review, reviewers should consider:

☐ Does the manuscript fit the journal's scope?

☐ Is the research sufficiently original and relevant?

☐ Is the research question clearly stated?

☐ Is the methodology appropriate and adequately described?

☐ Are the results clearly presented and appropriately analysed?

☐ Are the conclusions supported by the results?

☐ Are important limitations acknowledged?

☐ Are tables and figures accurate and appropriate?

☐ Are the references relevant and adequate?

☐ Are ethical requirements addressed where applicable?

☐ Have potential conflicts of interest been disclosed?

☐ Have potential research-integrity concerns been reported confidentially to the editor?

☐ Are the comments constructive, specific, and professional?

☐ Is the recommendation consistent with the comments?

19. Final Principle

The objective of peer review is not simply to identify weaknesses. It is to help ensure that published research is credible, rigorous, relevant, and clearly communicated.

Cortex appreciates the time, expertise, and professional judgment contributed by reviewers. Constructive and ethical peer review is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.