Peer Review Standards for JPD
Reviewers are essential to the credibility of the Journal of Psychological Disorders. These guidelines outline how to deliver fair, constructive, and timely reviews that help authors improve their work.
What JPD Expects in a Review
Scope and Relevance
Confirm that the manuscript aligns with psychological disorders research and offers a clear contribution to clinical practice, theory, or public health understanding.
Methods and Rigor
Evaluate study design, sampling, measures, and analysis. Highlight strengths and potential limitations so authors can strengthen validity and clarity.
Ethics and Consent
Check that ethical approvals, participant protections, and consent are documented and appropriate for the study population and methods.
Clarity and Structure
Assess the organization, transparency, and interpretability of the manuscript. Clear presentation improves clinical translation and reader value.
Review Standards
Core principles that keep peer review constructive and consistent.
Structuring Your Report
Begin with a brief summary, then list major concerns and minor comments. Separate feedback for the authors from confidential notes to the editor if needed. Numbered points and section references are especially helpful.
Professional Tone
Keep language professional and constructive. Even critical feedback should be phrased to help authors improve their work. Avoid personal language and focus on the evidence.
Data and Statistics
Comment on data availability, statistical appropriateness, and transparency. If results depend on complex analyses, request clarity or additional justification.
Revisions and Follow Up
If you recommend revision, specify what is essential versus optional. Clear priorities help authors respond efficiently and improve final quality.
Confidential Notes
Use confidential comments to flag ethical concerns, suspected overlap, or methodological risks. These notes help editors decide whether additional checks are needed.
Handling Limits
If a manuscript is outside your expertise or you cannot meet the timeline, decline promptly so editors can reassign without delay. If unsure, ask the editor before accepting.
Peer review should be critical and collegial. Your expertise strengthens the literature and supports better outcomes for patients and communities.
Ready to Review for JPD?
Join our reviewer community or reach out with questions. Contact [email protected] or submit a reviewer profile to be considered. We appreciate reviews that balance critique with guidance.
