The mission of Neurobiology of Language is to advance research and to disseminate knowledge about the neurobiological basis of language processing in the human brain. Our specific goals include: Publishing and disseminating work of the highest scientific standards; evaluating potential contributions using a fair peer-review system led by an editorial board composed of scholars from the many disciplines involved in investigating the brain basis of language; providing scientists from different perspectives and methodological approaches with a platform to exchange ideas, ask questions, and debate critical issues leading to a better understanding of the neurobiology of language.
Manuscripts submitted to the Neurobiology of Language will be entered into Editorial Manager, an online manuscript submission and peer-review tracking system. Initially, submissions will be reviewed by the Managing Editor and the Editors in Chief, with optional consultation from one or more Senior Editors. If the content of the submitted manuscript meets the journal’s guidelines in scope, significance, and ethics, it will be assigned to a Senior Editor with the appropriate expertise, who will serve as handling editor during the evaluation process.
The handling editor will be responsible for all aspects of the review process, including (i) inviting independent referees to review the manuscript; (ii) evaluation of those reviews and development of an initial decision; and (iii) communication of the decision and the reasons for that decision to the author.
In addition to the traditional review model whereby unedited reviews from all reviewers are sent to authors, some manuscripts submitted will undergo review using a consensus review approach as part of a trial of different reviewing models. The editorial board will compare the two models of reviewing after the first year of the journal.
In the consensus review process, the handling editor invites independent reviews and once the reviews have been submitted, a private online consultation session is opened between the handling editor and the reviewers, with additional participation by other Senior Editors and Statistical Experts by request of the handling editor. In these cases -- upon reaching consensus -- the handling editor will coordinate the drafting of the consensus statement. The goal is to provide authors with clear and consistent instructions on what revisions are required to the article for it to be accepted for publication. If the decision is that the article cannot be revised suitably or in a reasonable time frame for publication and must therefore be rejected, the letter will usually include the full reviews clearly explaining the reasons for rejection. If a revision is requested, the decision letter will usually include a single set of guidelines and the authors will not receive the full reviews. Under this model, additional rounds of revision are usually eliminated, as the Senior (handling) Editor is able to assess most revised submissions without re-review.
In all cases, referees will be selected based on their expertise in the topic of the article and their ability to objectively evaluate the manuscript. These referees will include both senior scholars and early career investigators, and the Senior Editor handling the manuscript will ensure the utmost integrity and rigor to the process. In no case will a candidate referee with a conflict of interest participate in the review process.
The review process will be double-blind – to the extent that this is possible – with referees and authors’ names and affiliations kept confidential. In the event that a Senior Editor handling a manuscript elects to coordinate a consensus review process, and a paper is ultimately accepted, that Editor will be encouraged to publish the consensus review along with the published manuscript, and to sign the consensus review on behalf of the reviewing team.
The Managing Editor and the Editors in Chief are available at each stage to provide handling editors with guidance and oversight of the process as a whole.
Steven L. Small, University of Texas at Dallas
Kate E. Watkins, University of Oxford
Salomi S. Asaridou, University of Oxford
Michal Ben-Shachar, Bar Ilan University
Yanchao Bi, Beijing Normal University
Jeffrey Binder, Medical College of Wisconsin
Stefano F. Cappa, Institute for Advanced Study of Pavia
Manuel Carreiras, Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language
Edward F. Chang, University of California, San Francisco
David Corina, University of California, Davis
H. Branch Coslett, University of Pennsylvania
Jenny Crinion, University College London
Karen Emmorey, San Diego State University
Evelina Fedorenko, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Simon E. Fisher, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Julius Fridriksson, University of South Carolina
Marilu Gorno-Tempini, University of California, San Francisco
Peter Hagoort, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Roy H. Hamilton, University of Pennsylvania
Erich Jarvis, The Rockefeller University
Ingrid Johnsrude, The University of Western Ontario
Denise Klein, McGill University
Sonja Kotz, Maastricht University
Matthew A. Lambon-Ralph, University of Cambridge
Mairead MacSweeney, University College London
Alec Marantz, New York University
Alex Martin, National Institute of Mental Health
Angela Morgan, University of Melbourne
Jonathan Peelle, Washington University in St. Louis
Marcela Peña Garay, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
David Poeppel, New York University
Cathy J. Price, University College London
Liina Pylkkanen, New York University
Josef P. Rauschecker, Georgetown University
Riitta Salmelin, Aalto University
Sophie Scott, University College London
Rik Vandenberghe, University of Leuven
Janet F. Werker, University of British Columbia
Roel Willems, Radboud University Nijmegen
Stephen M. Wilson, Vanderbilt University
Patrick C. M. Wong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Robert Zatorre, McGill University
Senior Editors for Innovation
Uri Hasson, University of Trento
Jeremy Skipper, University College London