PaperNest resources

Peer Review & Editorial Policy

Last updated: 9 October 2026

How research is assessed through journal and conference workflows on PaperNest.

Venue-specific assessment

The selected journal or conference defines its scope, eligibility, review model, reviewer requirements, and schedule. Check its published instructions and call for papers before submitting. These platform-wide principles do not establish one identical review process or turnaround time for every venue.

Review models

In single-blind review, reviewers may see author identities while authors do not see reviewer identities. In double-blind review, review files should exclude author identifiers and both parties’ identities are restricted according to the venue’s process. Open review can expose identities or review material only as stated by that venue. Public release of a paper does not itself authorize release of confidential reviews.

Screening and assignments

Editors or chairs can screen for scope, completeness, declarations, and submission requirements before external review. Reviewers are selected for expertise, availability, and eligibility. Participants must disclose conflicts; an invitation should be declined if independent assessment is not possible.

Review expectations

Reviews should be timely, evidence-based, constructive, and specific about strengths and limitations. Separate comments intended for authors from confidential editor-only concerns. Do not independently identify blinded authors, contact them about the review, or share files with unauthorized colleagues.

Human editorial decisions

Authorized editors or chairs make decisions using the venue’s process. Formatting checks, reviewer matching, and other assistive outputs are advisory; a score or successful analysis is not an acceptance decision. Editorial outcomes may include rejection, revision requests, or acceptance, subject to the venue’s requirements.

Revisions and rebuttals

Respond to each released reviewer or editor point, identify changes, and submit the required version and supporting response. Conference rebuttals and camera-ready uploads may have separate windows. Keep prior versions and decision references available; support correspondence does not automatically change a deadline.

Confidentiality and appeals

Private review material remains governed by the venue’s rules and authorized access. Use the submission conversation for permitted editorial questions. For procedural concerns, see Publishing Ethics & Appeals; for practical review steps, see Reviewer Guidelines.

Contact

For clarification of a venue’s review process, email media.brainfoundation@gmail.com.