apply.interfolio.com/157186

All application materials should be submitted electronically to lnkd.in/ePAGrYYH. Any questions regarding the application process may be addressed to marcia.schwartz@yale.edu.

Applications will be reviewed as they are received until the position is filled. Review begins on Nov 1, 2025.

Applicants may work in one clinical area, across multiple areas, or in the development of novel methodologies that can be broadly applied through collaboration. They should be motivated toward generating impactful work that can improve human health.

We are seeking candidates who develop and/or apply AI methodologies within the context of clinically relevant neuroscience problems. Candidates may integrate, advance or develop approaches such as NLP, machine learning, computer vision, foundation models, LLMss, and other methods.

Thank you & miss you all!!

A sustainable, fair, and efficient peer review system benefits affects us all and also depends on us all. We hope that this small step will help improve our current peer review system. Stay tuned with us and importantly, we hope you will contribute to the CPSY peer review process!

As such, introducing payments will not bias the outcome of the review – a concern raised by some in the past. We believe this change will enhance the fairness, efficiency, and equity of our peer review system.

Under CPSY's new model, reviewers’ compensation does not depend on the specific recommendation (accept/reject/revise) for the paper; instead, reviewers will be compensated per article as long as the peer review process for that article is complete.

However, this can no longer be justified when publishing companies are amassing huge profits and expanding their businesses by creating new journals. Meanwhile, the same scientists who review for journals for free get charged for reading papers and for publishing their papers.

Why aren't reviewers compensated, as is the case for any other type of labor? Traditionally, volunteering one's time to review manuscripts for the field is seen as part of scholarly citizenship – something you just do to support the field, not for personal gain.

Peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific publishing ecosystem. However, with the exponential growth of research, our current peer review model is clearly unsustainable. Reviewers are often overloaded with requests and editors often struggle to secure high quality reviews in a timely manner.