Editorial Policies

Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

General comments

  • Summarize general comments in a separate MS Word file addressed to the authors.
  • Provide feedback concerning the topic's relevance, the methodology, and the clarity of the rationale.
  • In the final paragraph, make a publication recommendation:
    • accepted
    • accepted with revision
    • rejected
  • ...and justify your recommendation.

Use the current Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.) as your guide.


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication and authorship

  • All submitted papers are subject to peer-review process by two or more reviewers.
  • Reviewers consider relevance, soundness, significance, originality and readability of submitted paper.
  • The possible review decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, resubmission or rejection.
  • If the decision of editor is to resubmit the paper, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.


Authors' responsibilities

  • It is expected from the journal that all data in the paper are real and authentic. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere and that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  • Authors must identify all financial sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors, during or after the review process.


Reviewers' responsibilities

  • Reviewers keep confidentiality of reviewed papers and treat them as privileged information.
  • Reviews are conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  • Reviewers inform the Editor in Chief's attention about substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Reviewers will inform the Editor in Chief if they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors.


Editors' responsibilities

  • Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article considering contents and overall quality of the publication.
  • Editors guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  • Editors have appropriate information of a research's funding sources.
  • Editors base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  • Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  • Editors preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
  • Editors ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  • Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem, but they should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members