advances.in/psychology is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor and integrity through a transparent, double-blind peer review and editorial oversight process. All submissions are subject to external peer review, reflecting our dedication to promoting impactful and trustworthy scholarship.
Double Blind Peer Review
We employ a double-blind peer review process, ensuring anonymity for both authors and reviewers to minimize bias. Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by two reviewers: one an expert in the specific field of the submission and the other with broader or complementary expertise. This dual approach ensures that accepted papers not only advance the field but also are accessible to a broader academic audience. In cases of highly specialized topics, the review process may involve one external reviewer paired with an editor who has expertise in the subject area. Reviewers have the option to sign their reviews if they wish to disclose their identity.
We rely on a diverse pool of reviewers, including both members of our editorial board and qualified scholars from the broader academic community.
Transparent Review
As part of our commitment to transparency, all anonymous peer reviews are published alongside the accepted article in the form of a review report, providing readers with insights into the review process and enhancing the credibility of the published research.
Conflicts of Interest
To maintain the integrity and impartiality of the review process, reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the authors or outcome of the research. As outlined in the Reviewer Guidelines, reviewers are excluded from evaluating a manuscript if:
- They stand to gain financially from the research being evaluated.
- They have collaborated with the author(s), including co-publishing, within the past five years, or currently work at the same institution.
- They have a close personal relationship with the author(s), such as family or close friendship.
- They have any professional conflict or rivalry with the author(s).
Confidentiality and Integrity
Reviewers are expected to handle all materials and information obtained during the peer review process with strict confidentiality. They must also respect and protect the intellectual property rights of the authors.
Reviewers should adhere to several key principles when accepting a manuscript for review. First, they should only agree to review if they are confident they can complete the review within the specified time frame. If additional time is required, it is important to communicate this with the journal editors before formally accepting the task. Additionally, reviewers should only accept invitations when they possess the appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript. In cases where their expertise is limited to certain sections, this should be clearly stated in their feedback. Lastly, reviewer feedback must always be constructive, respectful, and focused on the manuscript’s content. For further guidance on writing a balanced and comprehensive review, reviewers are encouraged to consult the Reviewer Guidelines.
Financial Compensation
In recognition of the vital contributions of our reviewers, advances.in/psychology offers compensation for their work. Further details on the benefits we provide to our reviewers can be found here. The financial compensation of the reviewers is entirely independent of their recommendation to the editor.
Editorial Decisions
The editorial decision to publish is made after careful consideration of the peer review reports. Decisions take the form of three alternatives: (a) rejection of the submission, (b) an invitation to revise and resubmit the submission, (c) acceptance of the submission for publication.
Through this process, advances.in/psychology ensures that every manuscript we publish meets the highest scholarly standards and contributes meaningfully to the advancement of psychological research.
