Reviewers for Glossa Psycholinguistics are asked to structure their reviews using the following checklist:
1. Publication recommendation (accept, accept with minor revisions, revise & resubmit, reject).
2. Short justification of recommendation (maximum 10 sentences).
3. Does the paper present an empirical discovery potentially of interest to most of this journal's readers? Please substantiate your answer.
4. Is the empirical content of the paper sound (e.g., do the studies include proper controls, are the samples sizes appropriate and justified, are the statistical analyses appropriate, etc.)? Please substantiate your answer.
5. Does the paper contribute to our understanding of psycholinguistic theory, and is the contribution potentially of interest to most of this journal's readers? Please substantiate your answer.
6. Do the conclusions follow from the data? Is the argumentation linking the paper’s broader conclusions to its empirical or theoretical premises sound?
7. Any other comments relevant to the evaluation of the paper as a whole.
8. What are your suggestions for improving the paper? (optional if your publication recommendation is “accept” or “reject”, strongly recommended otherwise). If your publication recommendation was “revisions required” or “resubmit for review”, your recommendations may be taken by the editor as requirements for future acceptance, unless you explicitly state otherwise, so please try to distinguish your high-priority requirements for revision from weaker suggestions.
9. Specific line-by-line comments on details of the paper. Begin each comment with a page number, example number or paragraph/line from top or bottom, as appropriate.
Reviewers are also encouraged to read the Glossa Psycholinguistics policy on open data and ethics and the journal's statistical guidelines before undertaking their review. Both give guidance about expected best practices for work in Glossa Psycholinguistics.