Journal of Memory and Language

Guidelines for Reviewers

Criteria for Acceptance

JML publishes articles in all areas of memory research and psycholinguistics. Its emphasis is on theoretical issues. Thus, the main question regarding the acceptance of a manuscript for publication is whether it makes (and articulates) a theoretically important contribution to its field. Novel empirical contributions may be publishable, but the Journal will not generally publish data that simply confirm a picture that is already well accepted. Purely theoretical or computational articles may also be published if they make a novel argument in a compelling way. The critical issue in all cases is the new contribution of something of value: A paper whose main virtue is that there is nothing wrong with it is not suitable for publication in JML. In a number of cases, a series of experiments is necessary in order to make a substantial theoretical contribution. In other cases, a single experiment with clear and compelling results merits publication in JML.

JML holds itself to the highest standards of methodological rigor, including experimental design, stimulus construction and statistical analysis. If there are problems in any of these areas, please note them in your review. Although the Journal does not slavishly require a particular probability value for publication, authors should present good evidence that their results are convincing and generalizable. In general, it is important to be confident that the results generalize over items as well as over participants.

Brief Summary. It is often useful to begin the review by briefly summarizing the main argument, evidence, and conclusion of the paper. This may help to clarify the issues in your own mind. Moreover, it often helps to bring to light disagreements on factual matters among the reviewers.

General Comments and Overall Evaluation. After summarizing the work, it is often useful to proceed to general issues. For example, do you find the topic to be interesting and important? Are the methods sound and the results compelling? Are the conclusions warranted? In light of these comments, you may make a recommendation as to what action should be taken. If you are uncertain, or if you see a number of possible actions that would be appropriate, you may indicate this also. Alternatively, you may put your recommendation regarding publication in a cover letter to the Editor rather than in the review itself. If you do include such a cover letter, please be sure to set it off clearly from the body of the review.

Line-by-Line Comments. If you wish, you may provide corrections or comments on specific points. Such comments can be very helpful to authors in their revisions. It is often most useful to do this in a separate section at the end of the review. Please do not place important problems in the line-by-line comments, as there is a possibility that they may be overlooked there.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the review is both to help us decide whether the paper should be published and to help the authors in future writing and research. Constructive criticism is an excellent way to provide such help. However, it is important not to allow anonymity to lead to harshly worded reviews. A good rule of thumb is that you should write your review in a manner that would leave you comfortable with signing the review, even if you do choose to remain anonymous. If you have any special questions or concerns, it may be best to put them in a cover letter to the Editor rather than into the review. In general, the more helpful the tone of your review, the more likely the authors are to accept your advice.

It is up to you whether to keep your identity anonymous or to reveal your name. Please indicate your policy when sending in your review. We ask that you adopt the same policy for all manuscripts that you review for JML.

The reviewers play a critical role in the publication process, and we thank you very much for your help.