Peer-review process

Peer-review process

Peer Review Policy

General Principles

The journal “Psychological Journal” applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published manuscripts.

All submissions undergo double-blind peer review, meaning that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

The journal adheres to international standards of scholarly publishing and follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial office to determine:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope and aims
  • adherence to submission guidelines
  • originality and absence of plagiarism
  • overall scientific relevance

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

2. Assignment to Editor

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to a handling editor with relevant expertise in the subject area.

3. Reviewer Selection

The editor selects at least two independent reviewers based on:

  • subject expertise
  • academic qualifications
  • absence of conflicts of interest

Reviewers may be selected from the editorial board or external experts.

4. Double-Blind Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • scientific quality and methodological rigor
  • originality and contribution to the field
  • clarity and structure of the manuscript
  • validity of results and conclusions
  • relevance of references

Reviewers provide:

  • detailed comments
  • recommendations (accept / minor revision / major revision / reject)

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

In cases of conflicting reviews, the editor may:

  • invite an additional reviewer
  • make a decision based on editorial judgment

6. Revision Process

Authors are required to:

  • revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewer comments
  • provide a detailed response to reviewers

Revised manuscripts may be sent for re-review.

7. Final Decision and Publication

The final decision is made by the editor. Accepted manuscripts proceed to publication.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to ensure an efficient review process:

  • Initial screening: 3–7 days
  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks
  • Revision process: 1–3 weeks (depending on authors)

The total time from submission to decision typically does not exceed 6–8 weeks.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share or disclose manuscript content
  • use unpublished data for personal research

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must:

  • disclose any conflicts of interest
  • decline participation if conflicts exist

Ethical Standards

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with:

  • COPE ethical guidelines
  • principles of fairness, objectivity, and transparency

Any suspected ethical misconduct (plagiarism, data manipulation, etc.) will be investigated.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective and constructive feedback
  • complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
  • maintain confidentiality
  • identify relevant literature not cited

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions.

Appeals must:

  • be submitted in writing
  • include detailed justification

The editorial board will review appeals and provide a final decision.

Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions are made independently of:

  • commercial interests
  • funding sources
  • advertising