Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Psychology and Strategic Communication (IJPSC) applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to all scholarly articles submitted for publication. Peer review is an essential element of the journal’s quality-control system and is conducted independently of the authors.

1. Peer Review Model

IJPSC uses double-blind peer review as its mandatory peer-review model for scholarly articles.

Under the double-blind peer-review procedure:

• the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers;
• the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors;
• review reports are treated as confidential editorial records; and
• all substantive review activities are administered through the official IJPSC Submission & Review Portal.

Authors must submit an anonymised manuscript file that does not contain names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, or other information that directly reveals the identity of the authors.

2. Number and Independence of Reviewers

Every scholarly article that proceeds to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers must possess appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript and must be independent of the authors.

For the manuscript concerned, external reviewers are not part of the journal’s editorial team and do not participate in the editorial decision as editors.

Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, independence, absence of relevant conflicts of interest, and the ability to provide an objective scholarly assessment.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before they are forwarded for external peer review.

The initial assessment determines whether the manuscript:

• falls within the aims and scope of IJPSC;
• constitutes an appropriate scholarly contribution;
• demonstrates sufficient academic relevance and originality;
• meets the journal’s methodological and ethical requirements;
• complies with the applicable submission requirements;
• meets fundamental standards of academic writing and scholarly referencing; and
• is suitable for independent external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are rejected during the initial editorial assessment and are not forwarded to external reviewers.

4. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are instructed to evaluate manuscripts according to recognised scholarly standards and the requirements of the relevant academic field.

The review includes assessment of:

• originality and scholarly relevance;
• clarity of the research question, objective, or hypothesis;
• theoretical and conceptual quality;
• appropriateness and transparency of the methodology;
• quality of the evidence and analysis;
• validity of the interpretation and conclusions;
• consistency between evidence, argumentation, and conclusions;
• engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
• accuracy and integrity of references and citations;
• research ethics and research integrity; and
• overall suitability for publication in IJPSC.

Reviewers provide a reasoned written assessment and submit their recommendation through the IJPSC Submission & Review Portal.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations form an essential part of the editorial decision-making process but do not automatically determine the final decision.

6. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the editor responsible for the manuscript after consideration of:

• the manuscript itself;
• the reports of at least two independent external reviewers;
• the authors’ responses to reviewer comments;
• the quality of any required revisions;
• compliance with IJPSC editorial policies; and
• relevant research-integrity and ethical considerations.

The final publication decision is independent of commercial considerations, author status, institutional affiliation, nationality, academic position, or personal relationships.

7. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must respond to the comments and concerns raised by the reviewers and editors.

A revised submission must include:

• a revised manuscript; and
• a structured response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance for publication.

Revised manuscripts are reassessed by the responsible editor and may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional independent reviewers may be appointed when this is necessary to obtain a sufficiently rigorous and impartial assessment.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect their independence, objectivity, or impartiality.

A person with a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in the review, editorial assessment, or publication decision concerning the affected manuscript.

Relevant conflicts may include professional, institutional, financial, collaborative, supervisory, competitive, or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the assessment of the manuscript.

9. Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and members of the Editorial Board may submit manuscripts to IJPSC only under conditions that guarantee complete editorial independence.

An editor or Editorial Board member who is an author or co-author of a manuscript:

• has no involvement in the initial editorial assessment;
• does not select reviewers;
• does not have access to reviewer identities;
• does not participate in editorial discussions concerning the manuscript;
• does not participate in the final publication decision.

The manuscript is assigned to an independent editor and undergoes the same double-blind peer-review process by at least two independent external reviewers as any other scholarly submission.

10. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Collections

Special issues and guest-edited collections are subject to the same editorial, ethical, and peer-review standards as regular IJPSC content.

All scholarly articles submitted to a special issue must undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent external reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the scholarly and editorial integrity of the entire journal, including all special issues and guest-edited collections.

Guest editors are appointed only after their academic qualifications, expertise, and suitability have been reviewed and approved.

Guest editors operate under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief or designated members of the Editorial Board and do not have unrestricted authority over publication decisions.

A manuscript authored or co-authored by a guest editor is handled independently. The guest editor has no involvement in the manuscript’s editorial assessment, reviewer selection, peer review, or publication decision.

Articles authored or co-authored by guest editors may constitute no more than 25% of the total content of the respective special issue.

Special-issue articles are clearly identified as part of the relevant special issue or thematic collection.

11. Endogeny

IJPSC monitors and limits editorial endogeny in order to safeguard the independence of editorial decision-making and peer review.

As IJPSC operates a continuous article-based publishing model, research papers in which at least one author is an editor, a member of the Editorial Board, or a reviewer of IJPSC must not exceed 25% of the research papers published during the preceding calendar year. This calculation is based on a minimum publication volume of five research articles per year.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by an editor, Editorial Board member, or reviewer are subject to the same editorial standards and independent double-blind peer-review procedure as all other scholarly submissions. Any person who is an author or co-author of the manuscript is excluded from reviewer selection, editorial assessment, and the publication decision relating to that manuscript.

This journal-wide limit applies independently of the separate rule for special issues, under which papers authored or co-authored by the guest editor or guest-editing team must not constitute more than 25% of the total content of the respective special issue.

12. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts, supplementary material, reviewer correspondence, and all information obtained during the peer-review process as confidential.

Manuscripts and review materials must not be shared with third parties without explicit editorial authorisation.

Reviewer identities are confidential and are not disclosed to authors.

IJPSC does not publish individual reviewer names as part of the peer-review record.

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers and Editors

Peer reviewers and editors must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and editorial records.

Confidential manuscript content, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or unpublished research material must not be entered into external generative artificial intelligence systems or other automated tools where confidentiality, intellectual property, data protection, or the integrity of the peer-review process could be compromised.

Generative artificial intelligence must not be used to produce independent peer-review assessments or editorial decisions.

Responsibility for peer-review reports and editorial decisions remains with the individual reviewer or editor.

14. Research-Integrity Screening

Peer review is supplemented by editorial research-integrity procedures.

IJPSC uses appropriate plagiarism-detection, similarity-checking, reference-integrity, and other quality-control procedures during the editorial process.

Automated screening systems do not make independent editorial decisions. Results produced by automated tools are reviewed and interpreted by an editor or another appropriately qualified person.

15. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers must:

• provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments;
• evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly criteria;
• maintain confidentiality;
• declare conflicts of interest;
• identify relevant published work that has not been adequately considered where appropriate;
• avoid personal, discriminatory, hostile, or inappropriate comments;
• not use unpublished material obtained through peer review for personal research or other purposes; and
• notify the editor of serious concerns relating to plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, or other potential research misconduct.

16. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected by the responsible editor on the basis of relevant academic expertise, independence, and suitability for the manuscript concerned.

Authors do not select the reviewers responsible for the final evaluation of their manuscript.

Any reviewer suggested by an author is subject to independent editorial verification and is not automatically invited or appointed.

17. Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials that form an integral part of the scholarly claims, evidence, analysis, or interpretation of an article are made available to the reviewers as part of the peer-review process.

Reviewers may comment on supplementary material when it is relevant to evaluating the validity, reproducibility, transparency, or interpretation of the research.

18. Publication and Editorial Record

IJPSC maintains an editorial record of the peer-review process through the official Submission & Review Portal.

The editorial record includes manuscript versions, reviewer assignments, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial decisions, revised versions, and relevant editorial correspondence.

Published scholarly articles display the principal dates of the publication process:

• Received;
• Revised, where applicable;
• Accepted; and
• Published.

19. No Guarantee of Acceptance

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee external peer review, acceptance, or publication.

Manuscripts must successfully complete all applicable stages of editorial assessment, independent external peer review, revision, final editorial evaluation, and research-integrity assessment before publication.

20. Official Peer Review System

All manuscript submissions and substantive peer-review activities are administered through the official IJPSC Submission & Review Portal:

https://review.ijpsc.org/

Manuscripts submitted by email, post, or through other channels are not accepted for peer review.

Authors submit an anonymised manuscript that does not contain names, affiliations, acknowledgements, contact details, ORCID iDs, identifying file metadata or self-identifying statements. All author information and the non-anonymised declarations are provided on a separate title page, which is available only to the editors and is never forwarded to reviewers. Templates for the manuscript, the title page and the response to reviewers are provided in the Instructions for Authors.

21. Timelines

IJPSC aims to handle manuscripts efficiently without compromising the quality of the review. Typical times are:

• Initial editorial screening: usually within 1–2 weeks of submission;
• First decision after peer review: usually 4–8 weeks after submission;
• Revision: within the deadline set by the editor, depending on the extent of the requested changes;
• From acceptance to online publication: usually 2–4 weeks, including the author proof.

These times are indicative. They may be longer if additional reviewers have to be appointed or if several rounds of revision are required. Authors are informed through the portal if a decision is delayed.

22. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, a procedural irregularity or an undisclosed conflict of interest may submit a written appeal to the editorial office within 30 days of the decision. The appeal must state the reasons in detail and respond specifically to the comments of the editor and the reviewers. Disagreement with the reviewers’ scholarly judgement alone is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Each appeal is examined by a member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the handling of the manuscript. This person reviews the manuscript, the review reports, the correspondence and the appeal, and may consult an additional independent reviewer. The outcome may be that the original decision is confirmed, that the manuscript is reconsidered, or that it is sent for further review. The decision on the appeal is final. Only one appeal per manuscript is considered, and the manuscript must not be submitted elsewhere while the appeal is under consideration.

Complaints about the conduct of the editorial or peer-review process are handled in the same way and in accordance with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Complaints concerning possible research or publication misconduct are dealt with under the journal’s Publication Ethics & Research Integrity Policy.

23. Guidance and Recognition for Reviewers

Reviewers prepare their assessment using the IJPSC reviewer report form, which covers the criteria listed in Section 4, a summary assessment, specific comments to the authors with page and line references, a recommendation and the reviewer declarations. The form is available as a Word document and as a LibreOffice document. Confidential comments for the editor are entered only in the corresponding field of the review portal.

IJPSC values the work of its reviewers. On request, reviewers receive a written confirmation of their review activity for the journal.

IJPSC invites external reviewers on an ad hoc basis for each manuscript. Reviewers are independent subject experts selected by the editors; they are not members of the Editorial Board and are not listed publicly. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers in a double-blind process, in which neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity. Authors may not suggest reviewers, but they may name individuals whom they wish to exclude because of a potential conflict of interest. Anyone who has reviewed for IJPSC may not publish a research article in the journal in the same calendar year.