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.
Table of Contents
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. Reviewers are selected exclusively by the editors. The journal does not accept author-recommended or author-opposed reviewers, in order to ensure full impartiality in the review process.
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.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials submitted alongside a manuscript and published with the accepted article undergo the same peer review process as the main manuscript. Supplementary online materials deposited in external repositories (such as data, code, or other materials on OSF or similar platforms) are not subject to peer review; authors bear full responsibility for their accuracy and integrity.
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.
To further protect author confidentiality and ensure review integrity, peer reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence (AI) or large-language models (LLMs) to create their assessments or reports. Using such tools poses significant risks, including breaches of confidentiality (as manuscript data may be used by the AI), superficial or biased feedback, and the generation of false information or fake references. The use of AI for basic language editing of the reviewer’s own report is only acceptable if it does not involve inputting the manuscript’s confidential text and must be disclosed to the editors.
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.
Editorial Review for Commentaries
Commentaries submitted to advances.in/psychology are evaluated by the editors rather than external reviewers. Each commentary is assessed by at least two editors for scholarly merit, relevance, and fit with the journal’s scope. This exception to the standard peer review process applies only to commentaries; all other article types are subject to external double-blind peer review as described above.
Special Issue Policy
Our special issue policy can be found here.
