Review policy

In the reviewing process, the reviewers are asked to evaluate how much the reported illusion is novel, stunning, eye-catching, mind-blowing, compelling, and astonishing. In addition, studies attempting to increase vividness, strength, beauty, and/or usefulness of illusions are also welcome.

The Journal of Illusion uses an open peer review system. Our open peer review system allows (1) authors to know the names of the editor and the reviewer(s) of the submitted manuscript, (2) reviewers to know the names of the author(s) and the editor of the submitted manuscript, (3) the editor to know the name of the author(s) and the reviewer(s) of the submitted manuscript, and (4) the readers to know the name of the author(s), the reviewer(s) and the editor. After peer review, when the manuscript is published, all of the reviewers’ and editor’s comments as well as the authors’ responses will be made available to the public. In addition, the manuscript(s) up to the final version will also be disclosed. If the paper is not published, the author(s) will still receive feedback on who made what comments and on what criteria it was rejected.

Before a formal review of Phenomenal reports and Review reports, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript and decides whether the manuscript be forwarded to the formal review or be rejected. We believe this initial evaluation is a necessary process to maintain the quality of JOI.

A published article is further evaluated by JOI’s readership upon the service of plaudit (https://plaudit.pub/). Moreover, JOI has a specialized post-publication commentary section (see 4. Post-publication commentary for detail.)

For studies on known illusion, we adopt a registered report scheme to the Registered reports Before conducting experiments on known illusions, the authors need to submit (and register) the descriptions including the background and hypothesis of the experiment with a reasonable amount of citations of previous studies. Upon the approval of the registered study on the basis of the review by experts, the authors can submit experimental outcomes and discussion. The approved study is published after the reports of experimental data and discussion passed the second peer-review.

 

Specific review criteria

Phenomenal reports

• Is the phenomenon new?
• Is the phenomenon interesting?
• Is the discussion appropriate?

Registered reports

Stage 1

• Is the phenomenon interesting?
• Are the hypothesis and experimental design appropriate?
• Is the statistical method appropriate?

Stage 2

• Was the experimental design carried out without any deviations that cannot be overlooked?
• Is the discussion appropriate?

Review reports

• Is the argument original?
• Is the discussion appropriate?
• Is the citation appropriate?