Peer Review Policy

Overview of the Double-Anonymous Peer Review Process

  • Author manuscript submissions will be acknowledged via email upon receipt. We strive to make an editorial decision within 60 days, but circumstances beyond our control occasionally dictate a longer cycle.
  • Each article will be peer-reviewed by two anonymous readers. These peer Reviewers will not be aware of the submitting Authors’ identity. In the case of a split decision, the Editor will read the manuscript and decide its publication fate.  
  • When revisions are requested, Reviewers will outline the key issues to be resolved in the revised version if the Authors decide to resubmit their manuscript.
  • The goal of an American Psychological Association journal is to publish cogent and clear information. The editorial staff will copyedit manuscripts to adhere to format and bias-free language (per the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 7th Edition style guidelines and Journal Article Reporting Standards). 
  • A proof copy will be sent back to the Authors prior to publication. This will allow the individuals to review copy-editing decisions prior to final publication.
  • Authors are normally given 45-60 days from the date of the invitation to prepare a revision. We strive to make a final publication decision after two or three revisions. Of course, additional work may also be requested to resolve any remaining issues and advance the manuscript's reliability/validity. 
  • Both Authors and Reviewers should keep a copy of the manuscript to prevent unforeseen software malfunction. (Consider using Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive, or Dropbox for free, online storage software.)

Dealing With Misconduct

The general principle confirming misconduct is the intention to cause others to regard as true that which is not true. Therefore, the examination of misconduct must focus not only on the particular act or omission but also on the researcher or Author's intention.

Editors should be alert to possible cases of plagiarism, duplication of previously published work, falsified data, misappropriation of intellectual property, duplicate manuscript submissions, inappropriate attribution, or incorrect co-Author listing.

In cases of other misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare a conflict of interest, Editors may judge what is necessary to involve Authors’ employers. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct. Where misconduct is suspected, the Reviewer must write to the Authors first before contacting the head of the institution concerned.

The following sanctions are ranked in approximately increasing order of severity:

  • A letter of explanation to the Authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
  • A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
  • A formal letter to the relevant head of the institution or funding body.
  • Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
  • Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other editors and the indexing Authorities.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest arise when Editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published.

Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest, including, but not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the Editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.

Editors should disclose relevant conflicts of interest (of their own or those of the teams, editorial boards, managers, or publishers) to their readers, Authors, and Reviewers.

What should I do if I have a conflict or competing interest? There are a host of situations that could be a conflicting or competing interest that would impact a Reviewer’s ability to review a manuscript. Examples can often be categorized into the following categories: financial, professional, and personal. Reviewers should contact the editors if they feel there may be a conflict or competing interest before completing the review. In some situations, the editors may decide removing the Reviewer is necessary; whereas, in others, the Reviewer may still complete the review.