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

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. 

Research and Publication ethics most relevant for reviewers (for complete Research and Publication Ethics please see the link under About the Journal.)

RESEARCH ETHICS POLICY

Studies to be published by the Global Psychiatry Archives must follow the highest ethical standards as outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the following updates published by the World Health Organisation. All studies need a positive ethical approval of the local or national Ethics Committee following individual national guidelines. Authors must confirm the positive decision of the approving organisation and must provide the necessary documentation if requested by the journal.

Human Hazards and Animals

If the submitted paper involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Animal research will only be accepted in exceptional cases. The author should contact the editor in chief for any potential submission. The highest standards for ethical research with animals that are available in the public domain at the time of submission will be the guide for the editors. Such papers and their potential publication will be discussed by at least three editors who have sufficient experience to deal with such requests.

Publication Ethics Policy follows the Committee on Publication Ethics Recommendations

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. The ethics statements for Global Psychiatry Archives are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (see https://publicationethics.org).

We will strictly abide by the review for publication ethics as recommended by the ‘COPE’ and remain transparent in acknowledging the source while publishing the information on a collaborative mode. Global Psychiatric Archives adheres to publication standards by honouring copyright laws. The journal will remain transparent and neutral to regions, religion, and should not discriminate based on the authors’ age, gender, race, or a person who may be physically challenged.

In case individual issues have not been covered to keep the provided information concise or because related events were unlikely to be relevant, we will apply the recommendations of COPE in its spirit.

 Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorised by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Reviewers Verification Summary

Manuscripts are reviewed based on the intellectual content of the paper without regard of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship or political values of the author(s). Conflicts of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor. Manuscript information is kept confidential. Any concerns regarding the review of a manuscript are communicated to the Editor.