Peer Review Process


Submission Checklist

Authors are required: 

  • Read the Aims and Scope carefully to gain a clearer overall understanding and assess to ensure that your manuscripts suit the IJSPSY.
  • To use the Microsoft Word template in preparing your documents,
  • To ensure that the publication ethics issues, copyright, authorship, figure formats, data, and references arrangement have been carefully considered,
  • To ensure that all authors have agreed and covenanted their contents to submit the manuscript.

Selection of manuscripts

The GAERPSY Publishing developed a quality-checking phase of the manuscripts' choice for the IJSPSY.

Phase 1: Editor' basic checking
The editor or reviewer checks the received manuscripts initially to determine their fitness to the scope and aims of the journal. The following decisions could affect the manuscript:
Paper rejection: If the manuscript lies outside the scope of the IJSPSY or the submission is not in conformity with established requirements,
Paper submission elsewhere: The editors or reviewers may recommend the author(s) to submit the manuscript elsewhere.
Accept after major revisions (Conditional acceptance): The IJSPSY will publish the article if the author(s) make suggested changes by the reviewers and/or editors. The author(s) must attend all requested updates and resubmit the manuscript. After corrections are made, the editor will review the updated version to see if the suggested changes have been faithfully attended.
Assign reviewers: The manuscript will go through peer review.

The editor or reviewer checks for plagiarism or similarities to all manuscripts submitted to IJSPSY in the Turnitin. Turnitin matches the rate of similarities to previously published documents, and all manuscripts displaying a reading above 10% (including self-plagiarism and dishonesty) will be rejected.

Phase 2: Peer review
The IJSPSY uses a double blind system to peer-review the manuscripts issued from Phase 1. Both reviewers’ and authors’ identities are made anonymous. Our reviewers are experts in the specific field (One editorial staff member and three external reviewers). The review process takes 4 to 8 weeks. A probable second round of peer review may be initiated in some cases if editors and reviewers recommend it.

At this stage, the reviewers could make one of the following decisions:
Recommended for publication as is
Recommended for publication with changes as indicated
Recommended for thorough revision and re-submission
• Not recommended for publication

The above recommendations are anonymously communicated to authors and are reviewed by the editor before reaching a final decision on the article's publishing. Suppose the editor suspects any bias or non-conformity from the reviewers with ethical norms. In that case, he/she can appoint a different or additional reviewer using the same peer review procedure.
Authors are responsible for making any necessary changes based on the reviewer’s comments and resubmitting the paper within a week of receipt of the notification for minor revisions and within two weeks for major revisions. The revision process might comprise multiple attempts until the editor is satisfied with all edits and can reach his/her decision to accept the article for publishing.
All reviewers’ comments should be responded to in a point-by-point way. If the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must respond clearly.

Phase 3: Edtior' acceptance result/rejection decision
The acceptance of an article is based on the average score provided by various peer reviewers. The reviewers mark a submitted manuscript on four scales: Excellent (4), Good (3), Moderate (2), and Poor (1). A manuscript with an average score of under three (3) is accepted for publication. However, a manuscript with a score higher than three (3) may be rejected when an editorial office or reviewer thinks it is unsuitable for publication. After completion of the procedures mentioned above, the editorial office will issue official letters mentioning one of the following decisions:
1. Rejection of the manuscript
Various reasons could be highlighted as follow.
• The manuscript lacks scientific objectivity, rigour, or lack of originality,
• The manuscript is outside of the aim and scope for the publication,
• The submission does not conform to the formal requirements or ethical guidelines of the publication;
• The author failed to make sufficient changes based on the reviewers’ comments and the policy of IJSPSY,
• The manuscript contains some emotional content that could mislead readers,
• The manuscript reveals confidential information without appropriate authorisation, etc.
2. Acceptance of the manuscript for publication for the next issue.

If the article is accepted for publication, it goes to the next stage, which is publication process

Phase 4: Publication process