Instructions for Reviewers

Archives of Psychiatry Research uses blind peer review.

Archives of Psychiatry Research requires at least two peer reviews before making a decision about a submitted manuscript. More reviewers are sometimes needed.

Every invitation sent to the reviewer includes a brief explanation of his responsibilities. When responding to the invitation, each reviewer is asked to report any conflict of interest to the editorial office.

When receiving an invitation from Archives of Psychiatry Research, the reviewer is supposed to:
  • Read the manuscript abstract in order to evaluate whether the reviewer has the necessary expertise in the subject area involved. The reviewer should accept or reject the invitation as soon as possible. If for any reason the reviewer feels expertly insufficient, she or he should inform the editor promptly.
  • Respect the deadline for responding to the invitation as well as the deadline for submitting the review.
  • Declare any possible conflict of interest to the editor as soon as one appears.
  • Keep all materials strictly confidential. The editor must approve any sharing of the material. All persons involved in the review process need to be properly identified.
When writing a review, the reviewer is supposed to:
  • Read the Journal's scope and Instructions to Authors in order to write the review with journal objectives and format guidelines in mind.
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively and impartially.
  • Notify the editor about any doubt in the integrity of the manuscript content or conduct of the study.
  • State the overall recommendations for the manuscript: accept, accept after minor modifications, accept after major modifications, reject.
  • Summarize all positive findings of the manuscript that could provide value to the journal.
  • Write every criticism or comment in clear, concise and polite language. State the exact sentence in question by citing page number, text line or paragraph.
  • Follow up all criticisms with explanation and advice for correction. If appropriate, comments should be supported with evidence from the literature.
  • Do not address authors personally, make any improper comments or use aggressive terms. Furthermore, it is highly inappropriate to use capital letters, exclamation marks or direct verbal insults.
  • Strive to make the review educational so the authors can learn from their mistakes and improve the manuscript as much as possible.
  • Inform the editor about all limitations of the review in the section “Confidential comments to the editor”.
After submitting the review, the reviewer is supposed to:
  • Destroy all copies of the reviewed manuscript in order to maintain confidentiality.
  • Refrain from using any information acquired during the review process until after the article has been published.
  • Read the reviews of other reviewers and contact the editor if additional comments are necessary.

LAST UPDATED 12 04 2024