Peer Review Policy

The "Journal of Psychology, Health, and Social Challenges" employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and validity of the research articles it publishes. Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the standards of scholarly publishing and fostering the advancement of knowledge in the fields of psychology, health, and social challenges. Our peer review policy is outlined as follows:

  1. Peer Review Process: Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo a thorough peer review process. The Editor-in-Chief assigns each submission to at least two expert reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. These reviewers evaluate the manuscript's quality, originality, significance, methodology, and adherence to ethical standards.
  2. Blind Peer Review: Our journal follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness and objectivity. Reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, and vice versa, to minimize potential biases. This anonymity helps maintain the integrity of the review process and ensures that submissions are evaluated solely based on their scholarly merit.
  3. Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and qualifications relevant to the manuscript's subject matter. We prioritize selecting reviewers who have demonstrated proficiency in the specific research area to provide insightful and constructive feedback to the authors.
  4. Review Criteria: Reviewers are instructed to evaluate manuscripts based on various criteria, including:

Originality and significance of the research

Clarity and coherence of the manuscript

Methodological soundness and appropriateness of research design

Adequacy and accuracy of data analysis

Ethical considerations and compliance with relevant guidelines

Contribution to advancing knowledge in the field

  1. Timeliness: We strive to ensure that the peer review process is conducted promptly without compromising the quality of review. Reviewers are requested to submit their reports within a stipulated timeframe to facilitate efficient editorial decision-making.
  2. Editorial Decision: Upon receiving the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the feedback and makes an informed decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions include acceptance, rejection, or revision with or without further peer review.