Reviewer guidelines

  1. How does the journal operate peer review?
  2. Instructions for reviewers
  3. Use of AI in your review
  4. Obligations of reviewers
  5. Reviewer FAQs

Review by academic peers is an essential part of the scholarly publishing and communication process. By sharing their expert opinion, peers evaluate and improve the research of their peers. However, peer review is not a perfect system.

One of the concerns with the traditional closed model of peer review (where reviewers are anonymised to authors) is that reviewers are seldom credited for their voluntary performance. A further dispute is that unscrupulous reviewers can hamper scholarly progress by demanding questionable changes, either intentionally exploiting anonymity or because they are simply unsuitable. Peer review suffers from a lack of transparency, recognition, and accountability.

The Journal of Experimental Pragmatics is different.


How does the journal operate peer review?

The Journal of Experimental Pragmatics operates open peer review via a preprint server and reviewers are invited by an Editor based on subject expertise.

In addition, as the journal operates open peer review and follows the open science principle "open as possible, closed as necessary", the names and affiliations of reviewers are published alongside their review reports, unless an acceptable reason is agreed with the Editors of the journal for the the reviewer to remain anonymous; for example, there is a real risk of potential or perceived harm to the reviewer if their name is made public.

Reviews are submitted to the journal submission system and then published openly online alongside the versioned preprint of the article that has been reviewed, in perpetuity. Each review receives a DOI and is made available under the CC-BY licence. Reviewers are also encouraged to link their ORCID profiles to their report and to add their contribution to accreditation services like Publons and ImpactStory.


Instructions for reviewers

If invited for review for Journal of Experimental Pragmatics, you will be sent instructions on how to submit your review in the journals submission system. When posting a review and/or comments in the journal, users agree to these terms and conditions set out below.

Reviewers will be requested to complete a reviewer form. Please follow the instructions and guidance in the form to list your major and minor points, any conclusions that you come to when assessing the article, and your overall impression of it. Keep in mind that the audience for the review includes both authors and readers.

Reviews should result from an in-depth and thorough evaluation of a research manuscript. Reviews should help readers decide if an article is scientifically sound, meets academic standards and is worth reading in its present form. They can either encompass the entire paper or just a single aspect.

We do not expect reviewers to decide if a manuscript is ‘worthy of publication’. Instead, the expert reviews expressed should aim to assist authors and readers, and improve the value of the associated article.

Reviewers should help to guide authors and encourage them to further improve their article. Reports should stick to the aims and objectives set out in the journals aims and scope (https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jxprag/site/about) and the author guidelines (https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jxprag/site/authorguidelines).


Use of AI in your review

Peer reviewers must treat a manuscript that is under review confidentially and must not submit the manuscript through an AI-assisted technology or tool.

Submitting any manuscript (as well as any data included in the manuscript) through any AI-assisted technology or tool may incur a breach in confidentiality, proprietary rights and data, including personally identifiable information. Peer reviewers must also not upload their report text through an AI-assisted technology or tool.

Further information about the acceptable uses of AI in UCL Press journals can be found here.


Obligations of peer reviewers

These obligations of peer reviewers outlines how the journal expects any reviewer for the journal to conduct themselves when undertaking a review of a submission. Readers will also find additional information about this in the journals peer review policies available at https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jxprag/site/journal-policies.

While the journal welcomes open scholarly debate and discussion, it will not tolerate untoward behaviour towards our authors and reviewers via our Comment system or via social media. When providing a review and/or comments in the journal, users agree to these obligations set out here.

  1. To ensure the highest quality of research in UCL Press publications, reviewers are expected to uphold the following when reviewing:
  2. Provide clearly written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly and/or scientific merits and value of the work, together with a documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion.
  3. Judge the paper on its merits without regard to personal bias, ethnic origin, race, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, appearance, age, or economic class, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
  4. Thoroughly address all review criteria provided by the journal.
  5. Decline to review manuscripts for which the reviewer lacks sufficient time, is not qualified, or has a conflict of interest with any of the authors, including personal or competitive relationships.
  6. Explain and support judgments adequately so that (Action) Editors and Authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement by a reviewer on an observation, derivation or argument that has been previously published should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  7. Provide citations to relevant work by other scientists as appropriate.
  8. Alert the Editor to any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal. Report any plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism.
  9. Never use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
  10. Never include personal criticism of the author in reviewing a manuscript

Open Peer Review in the Journal of Experimental Pragmatics: Reviewer FAQs

We recognise that open peer review can feel unfamiliar or daunting, particularly if you have previously reviewed in closed or anonymous systems. The questions and answers below are intended to explain how our process works, address common concerns and help you feel confident and supported as a reviewer.


What is open peer review?

Open peer review means that reviewer reports are published alongside the article and that reviewers are named. At the Journal of Experimental Pragmatics, your review becomes part of the scholarly record and can be read by Authors, Editors and the wider research community.

Reviews are published open access, assigned a DOI and attributed to you as the reviewer.


Why does the journal use open peer review?

We use open peer review because it promotes:

  • transparency in scholarly evaluation
  • accountability for reviewers and editors
  • recognition for reviewers’ intellectual labour
  • constructive academic dialogue

As a Diamond Open Access, non profit, community owned journal, our aim is to support fair and open scholarship rather than extract unpaid labour for commercial gain.


I’m worried about being named. What if my review upsets the authors?

This is one of the most common concerns, and it is entirely understandable.

Open peer review does not mean being uncritical or overly positive. Authors who submit to the Journal of Experimental Pragmatics do so in full awareness that review is open and visible. They are asked to engage with reviews professionally and constructively.

We encourage reviewers to:

  • focus on the work, not the author
  • explain critiques clearly and respectfully
  • frame comments as part of a scholarly conversation

Editors actively monitor reviews and will not publish content that is inappropriate, personal, or unfair.


Do I have to be “perfect” if my review is public?

No. Reviewers are not expected to provide flawless or exhaustive reports.

Your review reflects your expert perspective, not an absolute judgement. Thoughtful questions, partial insights and suggestions for improvement are all valuable contributions, especially when they help readers understand the strengths and limitations of the work.

Open peer review values honest, well reasoned commentary, not perfection.


What if I’m an early career researcher or a first time reviewer?

We warmly welcome early career researchers and first time reviewers!

Open peer review can be particularly beneficial because:

  • your review is visible and credited
  • you receive a DOI that can be linked to your ORCiD
  • your contribution can be cited, included on CVs and referenced in promotion or fellowship applications

Reviewing openly is also an excellent way to learn from others’ reviews, see how Editors make decisions and develop reviewing confidence over time.

If you are uncertain, Editors are happy to offer guidance.


What if I don’t know everything about the paper?

You are not expected to be an expert in every aspect of the manuscript.

It is perfectly acceptable and often helpful, to:

  • focus on specific areas within your expertise
  • say explicitly what you are and are not commenting on
  • ask clarifying questions where appropriate

Reviews may address the whole paper or just one element (for example, methods, data, interpretation, or reproducibility).


Can I still be critical in an open review?

Yes. Rigorous critique is essential to good scholarship!

Open peer review does not mean avoiding criticism; it means being accountable and constructive in how criticism is expressed. Clear explanations and evidence based comments are more persuasive and more useful to authors and readers alike.

Critical reviews are welcome when they are professionally framed and well supported.


How is my review protected from abuse or misuse?

All reviews are moderated by Editors before publication. The journal operates a strict code of conduct and abusive or inappropriate behaviour is not tolerated, whether directed at authors or reviewers.

If you have concerns during the review process, Editors are available to support you and can intervene where necessary.


What if I later change my mind or learn something new?

Scholarly understanding evolves. If additional insights emerge after your review is completed, this is not a failure, it is part of open science.

Open peer review acknowledges that knowledge is provisional and that scholarly dialogue continues beyond a single report.

Please contact the Editor or journal editorial office at jxprag@ucl.ac.uk if you have any concerns.


How does open peer review benefit the wider community?

Open peer review:

  • helps readers understand how research was evaluated
  • provides learning material for future reviewers
  • improves trust in editorial decision making
  • strengthens academic culture by modelling respectful critique

Your review contributes not just to one article, but to the integrity and openness of scholarly communication.


Who can I contact if I’m unsure or need support?

If you have questions, concerns, or would like guidance at any stage of the process, please contact the Editors at jxprag@ucl.ac.uk.

We are happy to support reviewers before, during and after the review process.