Peer Review Policy

Neural Prosody, LLC · Applies to all journals published under the Neural Prosody imprint

Neural Prosody conducts double-anonymized peer review for all submitted manuscripts.

Peer review is conducted exclusively by qualified human reviewers. All reviewers are compensated at $150 USD per reviewed article.

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy governs the peer review process for all manuscripts submitted to journals published by Neural Prosody, LLC. It sets out the standards, procedures, timelines, and responsibilities that apply to authors, reviewers, and editorial staff throughout the review process. This policy is read in conjunction with the Author Guidelines, the Editorial Bylaws and Governance, and the AI Use Policy.

Peer review at Neural Prosody serves a single purpose: to evaluate the methodological quality, transparency, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. It does not serve as a filter for findings that are positive, statistically significant, or confirmatory of hypotheses. Manuscripts reporting null, negative, or inconclusive results are evaluated by the same criteria as any other submission.

2. Review Model

2.1 Double-anonymized review

All manuscripts submitted to Neural Prosody journals undergo double-anonymized peer review. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers at any stage of the review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors at any stage. The handling editor is aware of both author and reviewer identities but is bound by the confidentiality provisions of this policy.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript file is fully anonymized prior to submission. Manuscripts that contain identifying information in the main manuscript file will be returned to the corresponding author for correction before entering peer review. See the Author Guidelines for anonymization requirements.

2.2 Published review reports

Neural Prosody publishes peer review reports alongside accepted articles. Upon acceptance of a manuscript, the complete text of all reviewer reports—across all rounds of review—is published as a supplementary document attached to the published article. Review reports are published in the form submitted by reviewers, without editorial modification, except for the redaction of any content that would identify the reviewer.

Reviewer names are not published. Review reports are attributed to “Reviewer 1,” “Reviewer 2,” and so on. Reviewers who wish to sign their reports may do so by including their name in the body of the report; the decision to sign is at the reviewer’s sole discretion and is not required or solicited by the editorial office.

The publication of review reports is a structural commitment of Neural Prosody. Authors accept this condition upon submission. Review reports for manuscripts that are rejected are not published.

2.3 Human-only review

Peer review at Neural Prosody is conducted exclusively by qualified human reviewers. The use of AI-assisted technologies in the preparation, drafting, or submission of peer review reports is strictly prohibited. Reviewers found to have used AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of their review will be disqualified from further participation in Neural Prosody’s review process. See the AI Use Policy for full details.

3. Reviewer Selection

The handling editor selects reviewers on the basis of subject matter expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and demonstrated scholarly record. A minimum of two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. The editor may assign a third reviewer at their discretion, including where the first two reviewers reach divergent conclusions.

Reviewers are selected with attention to the following criteria:

Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s topical area, methodology, or both
No current or recent collaborative, supervisory, institutional, or financial relationship with any author on the manuscript
No known personal relationship with any author that could reasonably affect the objectivity of the review
No prior exposure to the manuscript in any form, including as a preprint reviewer or conference presenter

Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers at the time of submission and may request the exclusion of up to two individuals, with brief justification. The editor is not obligated to follow author suggestions or exclusion requests but will give them reasonable consideration. Suggested reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the manuscript or its authors.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

4.1 Accepting a review assignment

Reviewers invited to review a manuscript should respond to the invitation within five business days. Upon accepting an assignment, the reviewer confirms that they have read and will comply with this policy, that they have no conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors, and that they will complete the review within the specified timeframe.

Reviewers who are unable to accept an assignment are encouraged to suggest an alternative qualified reviewer to the editorial office.

4.2 Completing the review

Reviewers are expected to submit a complete written review within 21 days of accepting the assignment. A complete review addresses, at minimum, the following:

The clarity and appropriateness of the research question or hypothesis
The adequacy of the study design and methodology for addressing the stated research question
The appropriateness and rigor of the analytical approach, including statistical methods where applicable
The completeness and transparency of reporting, including adherence to relevant reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, JARS)
The accuracy and completeness of the literature review and reference list
The appropriateness of the conclusions given the findings, with particular attention to whether null or inconclusive findings are interpreted accurately and without unwarranted minimization
Any ethical concerns relating to the conduct of the research or the handling of participants

Reviews should be substantive, constructive, and specific. General statements of approval or disapproval without supporting rationale do not constitute a complete review. Reviewers are asked to write as if their report will be read by the scholarly community—because, for accepted manuscripts, it will be.

4.3 Reviewer recommendations

At the conclusion of their report, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication as submitted or with only minor corrections
Minor revision — the manuscript requires limited, well-defined revisions; the reviewer is willing to assess the revised manuscript
Major revision — the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication; the reviewer is willing to assess the revised manuscript
Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who considers all reviewer reports but is not bound to follow any individual recommendation.

4.4 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscript content as strictly confidential. The existence of a manuscript under review, its content, and the identity of its authors must not be disclosed to any third party. Reviewers may not use unpublished information from a manuscript under review for any purpose, including their own research, without the explicit written consent of the authors.

Confidentiality obligations apply throughout the review process and do not expire upon completion of the review, editorial decision, or publication of the manuscript.

4.5 Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest to the editorial office before accepting a review assignment. A conflict of interest includes any personal, professional, financial, or intellectual relationship with the authors or subject matter that could—or could reasonably be perceived to—affect the objectivity of the review. When in doubt, reviewers should disclose and allow the editor to determine whether the conflict precludes assignment.

Reviewers who identify a conflict after accepting an assignment must notify the editorial office immediately and withdraw from the review. The editorial office will arrange a replacement reviewer.

4.6 Reviewer compensation

All peer reviewers who submit a complete review that is accepted by the handling editor are compensated at a flat rate of $150 USD per reviewed article. Payment is issued via PayPal or direct bank transfer within 14 business days of review acceptance. Compensation is not contingent upon the editorial outcome of the manuscript under review.

Reviews that are incomplete, submitted outside the agreed timeframe without prior communication, or deemed inadequate by the handling editor are not eligible for compensation. The handling editor will notify the reviewer if a submitted report does not meet the standards required for compensation, and will provide the reviewer an opportunity to revise and resubmit the report within five business days.

5. Editorial Process and Timelines

  
    Stage
    Description
    Target timeline
  
    Submission receipt
    Automated acknowledgment sent to corresponding author
    Immediate
  
    Desk review
    Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor reviews for completeness, scope fit, and adherence to Author Guidelines
    Within 5 business days
  
    Reviewer assignment
    Handling editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers
    Within 7 business days of passing desk review
  
    Reviewer response
    Invited reviewers accept or decline the assignment
    Within 5 business days of invitation
  
    Peer review
    Reviewers complete and submit written reports
    21 days from assignment acceptance
  
    Editorial decision
    Editor-in-Chief reviews reports and issues decision
    Within 7 business days of final review receipt
  
    Author notification
    Corresponding author notified of decision with full reviewer reports
    Same day as editorial decision
  
    Revision resubmission
    Authors submit revised manuscript with response to reviewers
    Within 30 days of decision
  
    Re-review
    Revised manuscript returned to original reviewers
    21 days from re-assignment
  
    Final decision
    Editor-in-Chief issues final accept or reject
    Within 7 business days of re-review receipt

These timelines represent targets, not guarantees. The editorial office will communicate proactively with authors if delays arise. Authors who have not received a decision within the expected timeframe are encouraged to contact the editorial office for a status update.

6. Revision Process

6.1 Revision rounds

A maximum of three rounds of revision are permitted for any single manuscript. If a manuscript has not been accepted following three rounds of revision, the Editor-in-Chief will issue a final rejection. Authors may not resubmit a rejected manuscript as a new submission without first contacting the editorial office and obtaining explicit written permission from the Editor-in-Chief.

6.2 Revision requirements

Authors submitting a revised manuscript must include a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, clearly indicating how each concern has been addressed or providing a reasoned explanation for any deviation from the reviewer’s recommendation. Revisions must be submitted within 30 days of the decision. Authors who require an extension must contact the editorial office before the deadline; extensions are granted at the editor’s discretion.

Revised manuscripts are returned to the original reviewers. Reviewers assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in the previous round and submit an updated report with a revised recommendation. The same compensation applies for each completed round of re-review.

6.3 Minor revisions

Manuscripts accepted subject to minor revision are not returned to external reviewers unless the Editor-in-Chief determines that the revisions warrant further external assessment. Minor revision decisions carry a 30-day resubmission window. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the revised manuscript and issues a final decision without external re-review in most cases.

7. Editorial Decisions and Communication

The Editor-in-Chief issues one of four decisions following peer review: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. All decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in writing, accompanied by the full text of all reviewer reports received for that round of review.

Decision letters include the Editor-in-Chief’s summary assessment and, in the case of rejection, a brief statement of the primary reasons for the decision. Reviewer reports are transmitted to authors without editorial modification, except for the redaction of any inadvertently identifying information.

Desk rejections—decisions made without external review—are issued with a brief explanation of the reason for rejection (typically: out of scope, incomplete submission, or non-compliance with Author Guidelines) and do not include reviewer reports. Desk rejections are not subject to the appeals process.

8. Appeals

Authors may appeal a post-review rejection by submitting a written appeal to the editorial office within 14 days of receiving the decision. Appeals must identify specific grounds—factual error in the review, demonstrable misinterpretation of the manuscript, or material procedural irregularity—and must include supporting documentation. Disagreement with a reviewer’s assessment, or dissatisfaction with the outcome of peer review, does not constitute grounds for appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may uphold the original decision, modify the decision, or—in cases of demonstrated procedural irregularity—order a fresh review by new reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief’s ruling on appeal is final. Appeals submitted outside the 14-day window will not be considered.

9. Research and Publication Misconduct

Allegations of research or publication misconduct—including fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or violations of ethical approval requirements—are handled in accordance with Neural Prosody’s Research Ethics Policy and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Any party—author, reviewer, editor, or reader—who has reasonable grounds to suspect misconduct in connection with a submitted or published manuscript is encouraged to contact the editorial office in confidence. All allegations are treated seriously and investigated in accordance with established procedures.

10. Related Policies

Author Guidelines (H0 Journal)
AI Use Policy
Research Ethics Policy
Editorial Bylaws and Governance
For Reviewers
Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions Policy