Peer Review Policy

We want to extend a huge thank you for agreeing to participate in the peer review process. High-quality reviews have the potential to enhance the interpretability and dissemination of scientific findings to the public. If there is ever a question during the peer review process, please feel free to contact one of the editors for support. 

What is the timeline for returning the review? Our goal is to run on a 30 day review period. When determining your decision to accept a review, please consider whether you can complete it within 30 days. 

What should I do if I may have a conflict or competing interest? There are a host of situations that could be a conflicting or competing interest that would impact a reviewers’ ability to review a manuscript. Examples can oftentimes be categorized into the following categories financial, professional, 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. 

Below we provide some general comments on the type of community we aim to build through the journal through the peer review process. 

  • The tone of the review carries substantial weight. First, treating other academics (i.e., early career and more experienced) with respect is an ethos we aim to protect. Second, a constructive comment in a review can be worded in a negative/condescending tone or a positive/supportive tone. It is highly likely authors are more willing to listen to advice from the positive/supportive tone versus the negative/condescending tone. 
  • Be sure to provide brief feedback on aspects of the manuscript and experiment that you found to be well conducted or written. This is reinforcing and can enhance the likelihood for authors to continue these things moving forward. 
  • Use evidence to support comments. For example, rather than stating, “the authors missed relevant research in the introduction,” it would be helpful to provide 2 to 3 relevant citations for authors to address in a revision. Similarly, when feedback is provided related to method decisions, including citations will allow authors to identify where evidence exists to inform the suggestions provided. 

Although not required, we provide the following template reviewers can use to conduct reviews. 

Template 

[Provide a brief paragraph identifying the title of the manuscript, brief summary of the focus, positive aspects of the manuscript, and the reviewers decision with justification] 

Title (if applicable) 

  • Ensure title is meaningful to study and 12 words or less 

Abstract (if applicable) 

  • For primary reports using a single-case design, reviewers may consider whether authors report relevant information suggested by the SCRIBE Guidelines (author guidelines suggest consulting SCRIBE when constructing an abstract). 
  • For synthesis reports, such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, reviewers may consider whether authors report relevant information suggested by the PRISMA Guidelines (author guidelines suggest consulting PRISMA when constructing an abstract). 
  • For method reports, reviewers may consider whether authors report relevant information suggested by the corresponding JARS Guidelines that fit the methodology of the manuscript (author guidelines suggest consulting JARS when constructing an abstract). 
  • Identify if keywords are accurate 

Major Areas of Feedback 

  • This section would include the most critical aspects of the manuscript and experiment the reviewer feels impacted their decision. 
  • Creating “subheadings” within this subheading by section of the manuscript (i.e., introduction, method, results, discussion) will help authors organize their revision. 
  • Missing statements related to Open Science Practices (see requirements under Author Guidelines) would fall under this section. 

Minor Areas of Feedback 

  • This section would include other areas of feedback that should be revised to be considered for publication. 
  • Creating “subheadings” within this subheading by section of the manuscript (i.e., introduction, method, results, discussion) will help authors organize their revision. 

Table Feedback (if applicable) 

  • Ensure tables are necessary, clean, easy to interpret, and support the narrative of the manuscript. 

Figure Feedback (if applicable) 

  • Ensure figures are necessary, clean, easy to interpret, and support the narrative of the manuscript. 

Technical Feedback (if applicable) 

  • Include any feedback on technical revisions, specifically related to APA 7 style.