About the Journal of Systems Thinking

Science in the Open.

Publication, peer review, public access. Every article in the Journal of Systems Thinking carries its review history in plain sight. Attributed. ORCID-verified. Permanent.

ISSN 2767-3847

About JoST

The Journal of Systems Thinking (JoST) is a journal of the Academy of Systems Thinking (AST). It publishes original work that investigates the nature, structure, and measurable effects of systems thinking across cognitive, empirical, ontological, and practical domains. The Academy of Systems Thinking (AST) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to advancing and protecting the science and practice of systems thinking.

The journal operates on four simple rules:

Public, Not Paywalled

Putting the public back in publication

The public funds most science, then pays again to read it. JoST charges no subscriptions, no article processing charges (APCs), and no paywalls. Authors don't pay to publish. Readers don't pay to read.

No gatekeepers. No bias.

The standards decide. Editors don't.

Publication depends on meeting clear, public submission standards. Editors can't hand-pick favorites, and they can't veto a paper because they dislike it. Their job is to run the process and check the rules, not to judge the content.

Science, Not Academia

Science should be blind. Academia is not.

Academia runs on reputation, connections, fashion, and politics. JoST judges the work on its scientific merits, not on who wrote it, which tribe they belong to, or what's currently popular.

Open by design

What you see is what happened.

Every step from submission to peer critique is public. Readers see the reviews, the author's responses, and each revision, not just the final paper. The whole conversation is part of the record.

JoST publishes six types of paper. Each is shown with its own cover color. See Publication Criteria for the types and how papers are checked before publication.

Publication Criteria

JoST judges papers by its published standards, not by editors' taste. Before publication, two to three editors check that each submission meets those standards, is classified as the right type, and passes the integrity checks. Every paper that passes is published and assigned a DOI.

Checked before publication

Every paper is checked before it appears. Two to three editors review each submission against JoST's published standards. They do two jobs.

Classify the paper honestly. A paper is published as empirical research only if it reports an observation and a sample. Theory, conceptual and methods papers are held to the gate for their type. Opinion is published only as an invited editorial, not as research.
Check its integrity. Editors check originality, plagiarism, sources, conflicts of interest, and ethics.

A paper that fails a standard goes back to the author with the reason in writing. A paper that passes is published, and open peer review begins.

Accepted article types

Every paper is published as one of six types. They are listed from the strongest evidence to the weakest, from empirical research to opinion. Each type has a gate: the test a paper must pass to be published as that type. The color is the paper's cover color across the site.

Empirical Research

Original studies built on observed data and replicable methods. Descriptive and exploratory work counts. This includes experiments, quasi-experiments, randomized controlled trials, surveys, meta-analyses, and Systems Literature Reviews (SLRs) built on systematic, reproducible selection.

Gate: the paper has an observation and a sample.

Applied Empirical

Empirical work done in real-world settings, such as organizations, communities, classrooms or practice. This includes case studies, field studies and evaluations of programs or interventions.

Gate: the paper has an observation and a sample, and the setting is real-world practice.

Theoretical

Foundational frameworks and theories, grounded in existing evidence and built to explain or predict. This includes theory competitions, which compare frameworks directly against the evidence.

Gate: the theory is testable and falsifiable, and it is built on existing evidence.

Methods Advancement

New or improved research methods and reporting standards that other researchers can use in their own studies. Methods for practice, such as workshops or interventions, are Conceptual.

Gate: it is a method for doing research, detailed enough for other researchers to apply.

Conceptual

Papers that add a new idea to the field, such as a concept, a distinction, a framework or a model. The idea is argued carefully from the literature but is not yet testable. Conceptual papers are often an early step toward theory.

Gate: the paper proposes something new and supports it with reasoned argument from the literature.

Invited Editorial

Commentary, perspective and synthesis commissioned by the editors. Opinion pieces are published only as invited editorials, not as research.

Gate: the editors invited it.

★ Canonical. Separate from type, the editors can mark a paper Canonical once the field has come to treat it as foundational. Canonical is a standing a paper earns over time, not a type an author chooses, and a paper of any type can earn it.

Submission preparation checklist

The publication clearly meets JoST's Publication Criteria.
The manuscript has been edited for spelling, grammar, and readability.
All image/figure permissions are secured and documented.
The submission is under 10,000 words (excluding references) unless prior editorial approval was granted.
The citations use the PNAS bibliography style and a BibTeX file is uploaded.
The manuscript is submitted using the JoST Word template.

Publication criteria

All published articles must:

State a clear claim or research question.
Describe replicable methods.
Present evidence or theoretical rigor grounded in science — not merely citation.

The editorial team does not judge importance, popularity, or ideological alignment — and neither should reviewers.

Rejection policy

Submissions may only be rejected if they:

Fail to articulate a claim, describe a method, or present evidence.
Contain plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification.
Include abusive, defamatory, or malicious content.
Violate submission format or ethical standards.

They may not be rejected due to tone, ideology, novelty, or perceived impact.

JoST Reviewer Guide

Peer review at JoST is a scientific practice — not an editorial or opinion exercise. Your job is to analyze whether the structure of reasoning and method is sound, not whether you agree with the ideas or find them interesting. Traditional reviews rooted in taste, ideology, or gatekeeping will be flagged and removed.

What peer review is for

Test ideas publicly in open scientific dialogue.
Improve rigor through constructive, structured feedback.
Hold scientific reasoning accountable — not suppress it.

What it is not for

Showcasing your opinions about the topic.
Persuading authors to adopt your worldview.
Increasing your own citations by coercing authors to cite you.
Writing your own alternative paper in the review section.

Common academic habits that don't belong here

Reviews that include the following will be removed or redacted:

Rambling, unstructured commentary that functions as a monologue or editorial.
Personal manifestos disguised as critique.
Demands for self-citation that serve personal citation metrics.
Meta-commentary about the author's choice of topic, framing, or theoretical lens — unless these directly impair clarity or validity.
Rewriting the paper according to your personal agenda. If you wish to approach the topic differently, submit your own article.

The four review criteria

Every peer review rates the paper on these four criteria. They apply to all six paper types.

Criterion	Key question
1. Soundness	Does the method or the argument hold up?
2. Evidence	Do the data or sources support the claims? Are the claims no bigger than the evidence?
3. Clarity	Can a reader in a nearby field follow it?
4. Transparency	Can others check it? Data, code and steps, or sources and stated assumptions.

Review is not about agreement, interest level, or worldview — it's about structure and support.

Required review structure

All written reviews must include numbered items in the following format:

1. Major Points: Identify any methodological, logical, or evidentiary problems.
2. Minor Suggestions: Offer practical suggestions for improving clarity, organization, or transparency.
3. Overall Assessment: Summarize whether the paper meets scientific standards.
4. Star Ratings (1–5) are required for: Importance, Validity, Completeness, Comprehensibility.

Examples

✓ Valid scientific review

"The sampling method is unclear and may bias the results."

"This claim extends beyond the data; please clarify the causal inference."

"Methods are sound, but replication details are missing."

"Clarity is good, but please define terms used from systems theory."

✕ Misuse of review

"I just don't find this topic compelling."

"The author should cite my paper from 2020."

"Here's how I would have approached this instead…"

"This whole paper is misdirected; let me explain what this field is really about."

Who can review

You may review if you have an approved JoST reviewer account and a verified ORCID iD, you agree to publish your real name, ORCID, and comments publicly, and you follow JoST's criteria and structure above.

Reviews may be invited by authors or editors, or posted unsolicited, if you meet the criteria. All reviews are constructive, citable at a permanent link on the paper's page, licensed CC BY 4.0, and linked to ORCID.

Malicious or bad-faith reviews

Strong critique is encouraged — but it must be evidence-based, logical, and professional. The following violate JoST policy:

Personal attacks or ad hominem.
Dismissive commentary without justification ("This is nonsense").
Ideological policing instead of scientific critique.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Copy-paste or unstructured reviews.
Deliberate misrepresentation of the paper.

Dispute resolution

Stage	Action
Flagging	Any reader may flag a review for misconduct.
Review Integrity Group	A rotating panel applies JoST's criteria.
Outcomes	Retain — review is compliant. Redact + Annotate — minor violations documented. Remove — malicious or non-compliant review is replaced with a public audit note.

No single editor may remove a review. All decisions are transparent and logged.

Editorial Board

Systems thinking is a basic and applied science, and our editorial board reflects that. Members are scholars and practitioners from the public, private, and academic sectors — as well as notable faculty and advanced students. They hail from many disciplines with expertise in many systems approaches across the globe. We especially encourage advanced graduate students to participate in academic publishing in the field as well as involvement in the journal.

Publisher and contact

Journal	Journal of Systems Thinking (JoST)
ISSN	2767-3847 (online)
Publisher	Academy of Systems Thinking (AST), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to advancing and protecting the science and practice of systems thinking
Address	AST-JoST 1001 South Main, Suite 700 Kalispell, MT 59901 USA
Editor	Dave Silberman
Email	hub@jost.science
Fees	None. JoST charges no fees to authors or readers.
License	Papers: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Copyright is held by JoST.

For questions about submissions, reviews, corrections or complaints, see the editorial policies.

Issues

Every issue of JoST. Open one to see its papers.

Loading issues…