PEER REVIEW PROCESS

We will generally practice a single-blind peer review system where the reviewers are anonymous to the authors. Those who prefer a double blind per review process for any reason are free to ask for this, and the editorial board will accommodate this wish.

All journal submissions are peer reviewed independently by at least two members of the Editorial Board and/or invited external reviewers who are experts in the field of psychiatry and the subject of interest of the manuscript.  

The reviewers should assess the accuracy of the authors affiliations, the justifications of the authorships in the declarations, the value of the research questions, the clarity of the methods, the originality of the results and their value for publication, the clarity and logic of the data presentation, the application of the scientific methods, the quality of the manuscript including its figures and tables, the relevance and consistency of the discussion.

After initial submission and receipt of the manuscript via the electronic editorial management system (provided by ejournalplus), the journal Editor-in-Chief initially reviews all papers for appropriateness, originality, basic scientific quality, and completeness of the manuscript in line with the authors’ instructions.  He will then allocate a managing editor from the Editorial Board with expertise in the subject of the manuscript for the handling of the submission. The latter will assess that the work is original and has not been plagiarized. The managing editor sends the manuscript out to two or more reviewers of his choice, without disclosing the identities of the other reviewers.

The managing editor will ask the reviewers to provide a numbered list of comments and recommendations which should be used as a guidance for corrections and improvements by the author. 

The reviews and reviewers’ comments are delivered to the Editors, who then assesses the reviewers’ feedback to ensure their comments are relevant and non-discriminatory before deciding on the fate of the manuscript, i.e., accept, reject, or request changes to the manuscript before publication.

The handling editor will send the reviewers’ comments back to the authors. If changes are required to improve the paper, authors are given a chance to revise their manuscripts based on the feedback they receive. They should amend the manuscript and respond to the reviewers’ comments, i.e., what changes have been made in the manuscript or not, and if so why.

Revised papers are sent back to the handling editor via the editorial manager who send the revised paper back to the original reviewers or additional ones, if necessary.

Feedback from the second round of reviews will be processed the same way. In rare cases, authors are given a second or third chance to revise and resubmit their papers should these not be found acceptable after the first revision. 

For more information, please check the reviewers' page.

For publication ethics related to the reviewing process see the paragraph on Reviewer Responsibilities in Research and Publication Ethics.  

Reviewers' instructions

Reviewers will be selected from the editorial board or from known international experts in the field of the paper to be assessed.

Reviewers may be proposed by authors, but it remains the decision of the editor managing the manuscript to choose the right expert reviewer.

Reviewers must make themselves aware of all the relevant information on this website and the Editorial Manager website, especially the Editorial Instructions, Publication Ethics, Publication Malpractice Statement, and the Tutorial for Reviewers. 

Reviews should be conducted timely, professionally, and objectively, without any criticism of the authors.

Reviewers should not have any major conflicts of interest in relation to any paper that they review. Conflict of interest may be financial, academic, competitive, collaborative, related to religious or political beliefs, or by any relationship or connection with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the paper. In case of any doubt, reviewers should declare their possible conflicts of interest to the editor in charge of the manuscript. 

Reviewers will respect the confidentiality of the content of the paper and its data. Reviewers will not discuss the content with third parties. They must report ethical or other concerns to the editor. 

Please provide a general recommendation on the value of this paper for publication to the editors. Please let us know what you formally recommend: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, revision and re-review, or rejection. You may want to comment on format, scientific and clinical relevance, actuality, style, clarity and coherence of presentation, originality of methods and results, and the quality of the data and the language. 

Reviewers will assess ethical issues such as previous publications of the presented research, plagiarising of other publications, ethical approval, informed consent, fabrication or manipulation of data or data analyses, competing interests. Minor concerns or the lack of clarifications about such issues may be addressed within the review and editorial processes. 

Major ethical concerns, ghost and honour authorships will lead to the immediate rejection of the paper. 

Reviewers should provide a numbered list of comments, critiques, proposals, and recommendations for the authors helping them to improve the paper, if possible. Sorting by subheadings, i.e., title, abstract, introduction, etc. is helpful. The authors are expected to answer the reviewers' comments and indicate the appropriate changes, point by point. 

Reviewers may indicate if they would like to add a short comment (max. 200 words) to the paper. This would be published with their names and affiliations below the paper. 

The performance of Reviewers is subject to assessment by the Editor-in-Chief. For more information, please see the Guide for Authors' section. 

Reviewers can be proposed by authors. The editors may choose to select the proposed reviewers or may select reviewers from international experts in the field. We have no fixed list of reviewers who would have all necessary expertise. 

Endogeny

Submissions from the editorial board are welcome. These papers must be externally reviewed and will be treated as any other submissions. 

The final decision on their acceptance will be made by the handling editor in collaboration with the editor-in-chief.