Peer Review Process

Every article published in this journal undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure quality, originality, and significant contributions to the Journal focus and scope. This process follows these detailed steps:

1. Initial Submission & Editorial Check
   Upon submission, the editorial team conducts a preliminary review to check whether the manuscript meets the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and ethical guidelines. Manuscripts that do not comply with these standards may be returned to the authors for revisions or rejected outright.

2. Anonymization Process
   To maintain an unbiased review process, all author-identifying details (such as names, affiliations, and acknowledgments) are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers. Similarly, the identities of the reviewers are kept confidential from the authors.

3. Reviewer Selection & Assignment
   The editorial team assigns the manuscript to at least two independent, expert reviewers in the relevant field of psychology. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

4. Evaluation & Review
   The assigned reviewers carefully assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

   • Originality and significance of the research question

   • Rigor and appropriateness of the methodology

   • Clarity and coherence of the argument

   • Relevance and quality of references

   • Contribution to existing literature

   Reviewers provide a detailed critique of the manuscript, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement. They may request additional clarifications, modifications, or supplementary data.

5. Reviewer Recommendations
   After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

   • Accept as is: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no further modifications.

   • Minor revisions required: The manuscript is generally strong but requires slight improvements.

   • Major revisions required: Significant improvements are needed before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.

   • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is not suitable for publication.

6. Author Revisions
   If revisions are requested, the authors are given a specified timeframe to make the necessary changes. They must provide a detailed response to each reviewer's comment, explaining how they have addressed the feedback.

7. Resubmission & Second Round of Review
   Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the original reviewers to ensure that all necessary improvements have been made. If the reviewers are satisfied, they will recommend acceptance. In cases where further revisions are needed, additional rounds of review may occur.

8. Editorial Decision
   Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editorial team makes the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request further modifications to the manuscript. The final decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers’ comments.

9. Final Proofreading & Publication
   Accepted manuscripts undergo final editing, formatting, and proofreading to ensure clarity and adherence to journal standards before being published in the journal.