Peer Review Process
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
Submission Checklist
Author (s) is required:
- To read the vision, scope and aims carefully to gain a clearer overall understanding and assess to ensure that your manuscripts suit the IJSPSY.
- To use the IJSPSY template PDF document in preparing your manuscripts,
- To ensure that the Publication Ethics, Copyright Policy, Authorship Policy, figure formats, data, and references arrangement have been carefully considered,
- To ensure that co-author (s) has agreed and covenanted his/her (their) content 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 vision, scope and aims of the IJSPSY . 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 peer review process takes 4 to 8 weeks. A fast peer review can take 2 to 4 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 author (s) and are reviewed by the editor (s) before reaching a final decision on the article's publishing. Suppose the editor (s) 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.
Author (s) is responsible for making any necessary changes based on the reviewer’s comments and resubmitting the article 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 author (s) disagrees with a reviewer, he/she (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 Publication Ethics, Submission Guidelines,
• The author (s) failed to make sufficient changes based on the reviewers’ comments and the IJSPSY policies,
• 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
