Reviewer Guideline

Peer review plays a crucial role in facilitating the Editor's decision-making process based
on transparent, evidence-based evaluations aligned with the journal's editorial standards.

Reviewer reports should not only guide the Editor in reaching an informed decision but
also assist authors in enhancing their manuscript for potential publication acceptance.

For manuscripts recommended for rejection, reviewers should provide detailed insights
into the significant weaknesses identified in the research.

This constructive feedback not only informs the Editor's decision but also equips authors with valuable guidance to refine their work for potential submission to an alternative journal.

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.
Confidential comments directed to the Editor are encouraged; however,

they should align with the primary observations provided in the reviewer report to authors.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based solely on the journal's publication
criteria.

Reviewers are advised to adhere to the following guidelines:

- Familiarize themselves with the journal's peer review policy before disclosing their role as a reviewer.
- Conduct reviews objectively, avoiding personal criticism or defamatory remarks towards authors.
- Present opinions clearly supported by rationale and references.
- Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
- Refrain from reviewing manuscripts if a conflict of interest may arise from professional, collaborative, or personal relationships with the authors, affiliated companies, or institutions related to the submission.
- Maintain the confidentiality of all materials received and refrain from discussing unpublished manuscripts or utilizing the information for personal gain.
- If a reviewer wishes to delegate a peer review assignment to a colleague, they should first contact the journal.
- Any concerns regarding these guidelines or the review process should be communicated to the editorial team.

We ask reviewers the following types of questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.

Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.

Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data
and quality of presentation.

Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?

Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.

Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid
and reliable?

Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?

Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.

References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.

Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor.
Please make sure to check if author(s) have followed our Sex and Gender in Research .
Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief , if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.
Before finalizing your report, we kindly ask you to review it thoughtfully from the author's perspective. Consider how you would receive this feedback. Is the tone respectful and professional? Are there any unnecessary personal or negative remarks about the authors or their peers?
Please be aware that the Editor retains the right to edit out any inappropriate language in your review.
While there is no prescribed sequence for your feedback, it should reflect your analytical process as a peer reviewer. Some journals provide specific questions for reviewers to address. Your comments should be thorough, backed by evidence and references, covering all relevant aspects within your expertise. Not all points mentioned may be
applicable to every manuscript, considering varying disciplinary standards. If unsure about field-specific reviewing criteria, reviewers are encouraged to seek guidance from the Editor.

Our journal remains impartial concerning jurisdictional claims presented in maps and institutional affiliations. Formatting decisions within maps and affiliations are at the authors' discretion. Peer reviewers should refrain from requesting alterations unless it significantly impacts the manuscript's academic clarity.
We prioritize swift editorial decisions and publication to benefit our authors and the research community. Reviewers are kindly requested to respond promptly within the agreed-upon time frame. If unforeseen delays are anticipated, please notify us to ensure timely communication with authors and explore alternative options if necessary.

Data Notes:
A reviewer's evaluation should furnish the Editorial Board with the insights necessary for decision-making and provide guidance to authors on enhancing their manuscript for potential publication acceptance.
Reviewers are encouraged to request additional data sets or information to support the presented data.

However, extensive follow-up experiments or specific hypotheses confirmation should be avoided, as they surpass the intended scope of a data note manuscript. Reviewers should advise authors to exclude detailed analyses or new scientific deductions from their submissions.

The assessment of a data note should focus on data quality and reusability rather than the perceived impact or novelty of the findings of the datasets.

Reviewers are prompted to consider and address the following queries in their evaluations:

Experimental Rigor and Data Quality:
1. Were the data meticulously generated using sound methodologies?
2. Was the technical validation of data quality effectively supported through validation experiments and statistical analyses?
3. Are the data's depth, coverage, and completeness adequate for the outlined research applications?

Description Completeness:
1. Are the methods and data-processing steps adequately delineated for reproducibility?
2. Is all requisite information provided for dataset reuse or integration with other data?
3. Does the Data Note and associated repository metadata conform to stipulated information or reporting standards?
4. Are the data collection objectives and limitations explicitly articulated?

Data Integrity and Repository Compliance:
1. Do the actual data files align with the descriptions in the Data Note?
2. Have the data files been appropriately deposited in a suitable data repository?
Reviewers are pivotal in ensuring the thorough evaluation of data notes, emphasizing data reliability, transparency, and usability.

Registered Reports:
This reviewer guide provides insights into the peer-review process for Registered Reports.
Should you have any inquiries regarding your review for an LJMS journal, feel free to reach out to the Editorial Team.
The review process for Registered Reports is bifurcated into two phases. In Stage 1, reviewers evaluate study proposals prior to data collection. In Stage 2, the full study, including results and interpretations, is under review.
Stage 1: Initial submission and Evaluation Stage 1 submissions will comprise an Introduction, Methods (including proposed analyses), and Pilot Data (as applicable). When assessing Stage 1 manuscripts, reviewers are tasked with evaluating:
- The significance of the research questions.
- The coherence, rationale, and feasibility of the proposed hypotheses.
- The robustness and viability of the methodology and analytical approach (incorporating statistical power analysis where relevant).
- The adequacy of methodological clarity and detail to enable precise replication of the proposed experimental processes and analytical workflow.
- The authors' inclusion of ample outcome-neutral tests to verify that study results can
effectively examine the stated hypotheses, encompassing positive controls and quality checks.

Post Stage 1 peer review, manuscripts may be accepted, offered an opportunity for revision, or rejected outright. Accepted manuscripts will receive an in-principle acceptance (IPA), signaling pending publication upon successful study completion as per pre-registered methods and analytical procedures, alongside a substantiated and evidence-based result interpretation. Authors are required to conclude their study within 12 months of IPA issuance.

Stage 2: Full manuscript Review and Submission Upon study conclusion, authors will finalize the manuscript, incorporating Results and discussion sections. Stage 2 manuscripts will align more closely with a conventional
article format. Reviewers will then evaluate:
- Whether the data can effectively examine the authors' proposed hypotheses by fulfilling the approved outcome-neutral conditions.
- Whether the Introduction, rationale, and hypotheses remain consistent with the verified Stage 1 submission (required).
- The authors' meticulous adherence to the registered experimental procedures.
- The justification, methodological validity, and informativeness of any unregistered post hoc analyses presented by the authors.
- Whether the authors' conclusions align with the data and are warranted.

In Stage 2, reviewers may suggest additional post hoc tests on the data. Authors, however, are not obligated to incorporate such tests unless deemed essential to satisfy the Stage 2 review criteria. Please note that editorial decisions will not be influenced by the perceived significance, novelty, or conclusiveness of the results.