Editors Guidelines
How an editor of the Journal of Human Psychology handles a manuscript: what to assess, when to recuse, how to run the review, and what to escalate.
JHP ISSN 2644-1101 Single-blind by default; double-blind on request COPE guidance Open access · CC BY 4.0
What an editor is responsible for
The decision on a manuscript is the editor’s. The reviews inform it; they do not make it.
The journal’s review model is single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
An editor handling a manuscript for this journal is responsible for five things: that the work is in scope, that it was reviewed by people competent to judge it, that the ethical requirements were met, that the decision rests on the manuscript rather than on its authors, and that everyone involved is treated the same way regardless of where they work.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. They are independent of fees, services, memberships, and any role an author holds with the journal or the publisher. An editor who is asked to take any of those into account should decline and refer the request to the editorial office.
- Confidentiality. A submitted manuscript is a confidential document. Do not share it, discuss its content outside the review, or use unpublished material from it.
- Even-handedness. Assess the manuscript, not the author’s institution, nationality, seniority, first language or publication record.
- Documented handling. Keep the record in the submission system rather than in personal correspondence, so a handover or a later query can be answered.
- Timeliness. Move a manuscript on, or say that you cannot. An editor who cannot take a manuscript should decline promptly so it can be reassigned; an editor who is unavailable for a period should tell the editorial office.
Conflicts of interest and recusal
If a reasonable person, knowing what you know, might doubt that your judgment on this manuscript is independent, recuse. The threshold is doubt, not proof.
Recuse from a manuscript where you are an author or a named collaborator; where an author is a colleague at your own institution or department; where you have published with an author recently; where you are supervising, or have supervised, an author; where you hold a commercial, financial or personal relationship with an author or with an organization with an interest in the findings; or where you have a competing manuscript in preparation on the same question.
Recuse in the submission system rather than by declining informally, so the reassignment is recorded and the manuscript does not sit unhandled.
A manuscript authored by a member of the editorial board is handled independently by an editor with no involvement in it. The submitting editor is recused from handling and deciding the manuscript and has no privileged editorial access. As an author, they receive the normal author-facing correspondence, review reports and decision through the standard submission process. Reviewer anonymity is maintained.
Screening a submission
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. The question at this stage is whether the manuscript can be reviewed, not whether it is good.
- Scope. Is a psychological construct, mechanism, experience or behavioral outcome central to the contribution? Human participation, a medical dataset or a questionnaire alone does not establish fit.
- Ethics documentation. Is there a named approving body with a reference number, or a documented basis for exemption? Is consent confirmed? For an interventional trial, is the registry, number and registration date reported?
- Completeness. Are the declarations present, including the data-availability statement? Is the reporting checklist uploaded for the design?
- Originality. Read the similarity report rather than its percentage. Overlap in a methods section that cites its source is a different matter from undisclosed reuse of an argument.
- Concurrent submission. A manuscript under consideration at another journal is returned.
A manuscript may be returned at screening without external review. Where it is, say which of the five points it failed and whether resubmission after correction would be welcome. A screening decision an author cannot act on is a decision they will appeal.
Choosing reviewers
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. The choice of reviewers is the single decision that most affects the quality of the review.
What to look for
- Subject expertise in the manuscript’s own question, not merely its field.
- Methodological coverage across the reviewers: for a psychometric or heavily quantitative paper, at least one reviewer competent in the analysis itself.
- Where a study sits in a particular population or setting, a reviewer who knows that context.
- A mix of perspectives rather than two reviewers from the same group.
What disqualifies
- Recent co-authorship, shared affiliation, or a supervisory relationship with an author.
- A commercial or personal relationship with an author, or with an organization with an interest in the findings.
- A competing manuscript on the same question.
- A reviewer proposed by the authors whose independence cannot be established. Author-suggested reviewers may be used, but they are checked, and they are never the only reviewers.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers. Check the reviewer file before sending it: acknowledgments, funding statements, a named local service, a trial registration entry and document properties are the usual sources of a leak.
Running the review
-
Brief the reviewers
Say what you want from each reviewer, particularly where you have chosen them for one aspect of the manuscript. A reviewer asked specifically about the measurement model will answer that question; a reviewer asked for a general opinion will give one.
-
Read the reviews before you forward them
A review that is dismissive, personal, or aimed at the authors rather than the work is not sent to the authors as written. Ask the reviewer to revise it, or summarize the substantive points yourself and set the rest aside. Reviewer anonymity is not a license for incivility, and an author who receives an abusive review will remember the journal for it.
-
Handle disagreement rather than counting it
Two reviewers who disagree are giving you information, not a tie to be broken. Read both against the manuscript, decide which concern is material, and where you cannot resolve it, seek a further review and say why.
-
Watch for coercive citation
A reviewer request to add citations that do not bear on the argument, particularly to the reviewer’s own work, is removed from the review and reported to the editorial office. Authors are not required to add a citation that does not serve the manuscript.
-
Reviewer use of AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. An editor who suspects a review was generated rather than written should set it aside and seek another.
Reaching and writing the decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
| Decision | Use it when |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript meets the journal’s requirements as it stands. Rare at first decision. |
| Minor revision | The conclusions hold; what is needed is clarification, additional reporting or presentation. No further external review is expected. |
| Major revision | The work could be publishable but a substantive concern has to be addressed — an analysis to add, a claim to withdraw, a limitation to confront. Further review is likely. |
| Reject | The manuscript is out of scope, or the concern is not one revision can resolve. Say which, because the two mean different things for the author’s next step. |
Writing it
- Say what decides it. Name the points that determine the outcome, and separate them from the points that are merely improvements.
- Do not delegate the decision to the reviews. “Please see the reviewer comments” is not a decision letter. Where you disagree with a reviewer, say so, so the authors know what to act on.
- Make a revision request answerable. An author cannot collect data that no longer exists; a request that cannot be met is a rejection written as a revision.
- Never promise an outcome. An invitation to revise is not a commitment to accept, and should not be written as one.
What to look at in psychological research
These are the recurring points in this journal’s subject matter where a manuscript fails on something a general methodological read does not catch.
- Measurement. Is each instrument named with its version, and is there psychometric evidence for its use in this population? A validated scale used in a different population, language or age group is a limitation the manuscript must address.
- Consent where consent is difficult. Research with children and adolescents, with adults whose capacity may fluctuate, or with participants in a dependent relationship to the researcher needs more than a sentence confirming consent was obtained.
- Identifiability. A case description, a verbatim quotation, a small subgroup or a named setting can identify a participant even without a name. Check that consent for publication was obtained where it could.
- Distress and safeguarding. Where a study asks about trauma, self-harm, suicidality, substance use or violence, the manuscript should describe how risk was monitored and what was available to participants who needed it.
- Claims against design. A cross-sectional association reported as an effect, a mediation model presented as a mechanism, or a pilot presented as evidence of efficacy: the claim has to be brought back to what the design supports.
- Therapeutic claims. A statement that an intervention works, or is safe, must rest on the study’s own data. This is the point on which to be least accommodating.
- Statistical interpretation. Effect sizes with confidence intervals rather than significance alone; every prespecified outcome reported; a change of outcome after the study began identified as such.
- Generalization and language. Findings from one cultural or institutional context presented as universal, and language that categorizes people by a diagnosis or a behavior, are both editorial matters rather than matters of taste.
When a matter leaves the editor’s hands
An editor does not investigate a suspicion of misconduct, and does not contact an author’s institution directly. Record what you have seen, refer it to the editorial office, and stop handling the manuscript on the substance until the referral is answered.
Refer to the editorial office where you encounter: apparent fabrication or falsification of data; image manipulation; plagiarism beyond a citation error; an authorship dispute or an author added or removed without explanation; ethics documentation that appears inaccurate; a study that appears to have proceeded without approval or consent; an undisclosed competing interest; a duplicate submission; or a reviewer acting improperly.
The journal follows COPE guidance on allegations. The corresponding author is asked to respond, the institution may be notified where the matter is within its remit, and the outcome is recorded in the published record where publication has already occurred.
Referring a matter is not an accusation, and an editor who refers something that turns out to be innocent has done the right thing. The failure mode this rule exists to prevent is an editor handling an allegation alone, in correspondence, with no record.
Correcting a published article
The published record is corrected in public rather than quietly amended, and an article is never silently replaced. The four actions available — correction, expression of concern, retraction and, rarely, removal — are set out with the circumstances for each on the editorial policies page, and an editor who thinks one is needed refers it to the editorial office rather than issuing it.
Appeals against a decision are considered by an editor who was not involved in it. An editor whose decision is appealed takes no part in the appeal and does not correspond with the author about it.
Editorial tools and support
Use ManuscriptZone for assignments, review progress and decisions. Request reviewer-invitation or decision-letter templates, system assistance and policy clarification from [email protected].
Consult the COPE guidance and flowcharts alongside the journal's editorial policies and author instructions. Templates support clear communication; the handling editor remains responsible for a manuscript-specific assessment and reasoned decision.
Related pages
When a manuscript raises something this page does not cover
Refer it to the editorial office at [email protected] rather than deciding alone. The reviewer guidelines set out what the journal asks of the people you invite, and the editorial policies carry every rule this page summarizes.
Journal of Human Psychology (JHP) · ISSN 2644-1101 · Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302 · Published by Open Access Pub · Content licensed CC BY 4.0, authors retain copyright