Submissions

Author Guidelines

Authors are invited to make a submission to this journal. All submissions will be assessed by an editor to determine whether they meet the aims and scope of this journal. Those considered to be a good fit will be sent for peer review before determining whether they will be accepted or rejected.

Before making a submission, authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any material included with the submission, such as photos, documents and datasets. All authors identified on the submission must consent to be identified as an author. Where appropriate, research should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee in accordance with the legal requirements of the study's country.

An editor may desk reject a submission if it does not meet minimum standards of quality. Before submitting, please ensure that the study design and research argument are structured and articulated properly. The title should be concise and the abstract should be able to stand on its own. This will increase the likelihood of reviewers agreeing to review the paper. When you're satisfied that your submission meets this standard, please follow the checklist below to prepare your submission.

Manuscript Types

Structure & Presentation

• Title Page: concise (≤18 words), full author affiliations, corresponding author email, ORCID IDs.
• Abstract: 200–250 words, structured; 4–6 keywords (include domain + method).
• Main Body: IMRaD for empirical papers; structured narrative for conceptual/review.
• References: APA 7th or Harvard style accepted; DOIs mandatory where available.
• Supplementary: graphical abstract, plain-language summary (≤150 words).

Research Integrity & Ethics

• Adhere to COPE, APA Ethical Guidelines, and Declaration of Helsinki.
• Include Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent approval for human research.
• Explicitly state informed consent and data privacy practices.
• For AI/BCI studies, describe safety protocols, fairness checks, and participant debriefing.

Data Transparency & Open Science

• Provide a Data and Code Availability Statement (with OSF, Zenodo, or institutional repositories).
• Encourage preregistration for confirmatory studies and detailed method sharing.
• Include statistical robustness reporting (effect sizes, CIs, model performance metrics).

Editorial & Review Process

• Double-blind peer review with at least two expert reviewers.
• Reviewers evaluate novelty, rigor, transparency, and translation.
• Decision outcomes: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.
• Typical review cycle: 6–8 weeks.