Reviewer Guidelines
What the Journal of Human Psychology asks of a peer reviewer: when to decline, what to assess, how to write it, and where the reviewer’s job ends.
JHP ISSN 2644-1101 Single-blind by default; double-blind on request COPE guidance Open access · CC BY 4.0
Before you accept
Advises. Reads the manuscript against its own claims and reports what a reader needs to know.
Decides. Weighs the reviews against the manuscript and the journal’s requirements, and takes responsibility for the outcome.
The journal’s review model is single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Accepting an invitation is a commitment to read the manuscript properly. Declining promptly is more useful to the journal than accepting and delaying, and a suggestion of someone better placed is more useful still.
- Is this your subject? Not the field — the question. If you can assess part of the manuscript but not its analysis, accept and say which part you are addressing, so the editor can cover the rest.
- Do you have a conflict? Decline where you have recently published with an author, share their institution, have supervised or been supervised by them, hold a commercial or personal relationship with them or with an organization with an interest in the findings, or have a competing manuscript on the same question. If a reasonable person might doubt your independence, decline.
- Can you do it in the time? Say when you can return the review, and tell the editor if that changes.
- Do you already know this manuscript? If you have reviewed it for another journal, say so. That is information the editor needs, not a reason you cannot review.
On a double-blind manuscript, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors. If you recognize the work regardless, tell the editor and let them decide whether you should continue.
Confidentiality and the use of AI
A manuscript under review is a confidential document and unpublished work.
- Do not share it. Not with a colleague, not with a student, not in a lab meeting. If you want a co-reviewer — a student learning to review, or a statistician — ask the editor first, and name them so their contribution is recorded.
- Do not use its content. Findings, ideas, methods and data from a manuscript under review are not available to you until they are published.
- Do not upload it. Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. This applies to all externally hosted AI tools, not only public ones.
- Delete it afterwards. After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
What to assess
The question throughout is whether the manuscript’s conclusions follow from what it reports. Not whether the topic is fashionable, whether the result is positive, or whether you would have designed the study differently. Apply the empirical checks below where relevant to the manuscript's design. For narrative or conceptual contributions within the existing review and editorial/commentary formats, assess the clarity and coherence of the argument, engagement with relevant evidence, alternative explanations and limits of the claims. Such work does not require participant data or an immediate practical application.
-
The question and its contribution
Is there a clear psychological question, and does the manuscript say what its findings, methods or reasoning add? A study whose result is a measured effect in a real setting is publishable on its own terms; novelty of mechanism is not a condition of acceptance.
-
Design and participants
Is the design capable of answering the question? Are participants, recruitment, setting and inclusion criteria described well enough for a reader to judge whom the finding applies to? Is attrition reported and addressed?
-
Measures
Is each instrument named with its version, and is there evidence supporting its use in this population? Where a scale has been translated or adapted, is that described? Is scoring, including the handling of missing items and the source of any cut-off, stated?
-
Analysis
Is the analysis appropriate to the design and the data? Are effect sizes reported with confidence intervals rather than significance alone? Are assumptions checked, missing data described, and multiple comparisons addressed? Was the analysis plan set in advance, and if it changed, is that identified?
-
Reporting completeness
Is every prespecified outcome reported, including those that were not significant? Does the manuscript follow the reporting guideline for its design — CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, COREQ or the equivalent?
-
Interpretation and limitations
Do the conclusions match the evidence? Are limitations confronted rather than listed? Does the discussion say where the findings do not generalize?
-
Qualitative work on its own terms
Assess whether the sampling rationale, composition and adequacy support the qualitative design and research question; a large sample is not a universal requirement. Is the analytic approach named and applied consistently? Is coding described where the method uses it? Are interpretations traceable to the material? Is the researcher’s own position in relation to the participants addressed?
The points that matter most in this journal’s subject
| What to watch for | The question to ask |
|---|---|
| Scale used outside its validation | Was this instrument validated in this population, language and age group? If not, is the limitation stated? |
| Reliability reported from elsewhere | Is the internal consistency observed in this sample reported, or only the figure from the original validation study? |
| Association read as cause | Does a cross-sectional or correlational design support the causal language used in the abstract and discussion? |
| Mediation as mechanism | Does the design allow a temporal claim, or is a statistical model being described as a psychological process? |
| Therapeutic or efficacy claims | Does the study’s own data support the claim that the intervention works, or is safe? A pilot is not evidence of efficacy. |
| Cultural generalization | Are findings from one cultural or institutional setting presented as universal features of human psychology? |
| Stigmatizing language | Does the manuscript describe people, or categorize them by a diagnosis or a behavior as though it were an identity? |
| Mental-health claims beyond the data | Are conclusions about clinical need, risk or treatment supported by the outcomes actually measured? |
| Underpowered and framed as null | Does the manuscript distinguish an absence of evidence from evidence of absence, and report precision? |
| Vulnerable participants | Are the additional protections described, and is the population’s own involvement in the design addressed where that is relevant? |
Raising one of these is not a recommendation to reject. Most are points a revision can address, and saying which of them is material to the conclusions is the most useful thing a review can do.
Ethical and integrity concerns
Report these to the editor rather than to the authors, and do not investigate them yourself.
- Ethics documentation. Is an approving body named with a reference number, or a documented basis for exemption given? For an interventional trial, is the registry, the number and the registration date reported?
- Consent. Is consent confirmed, and described where the circumstances made it demanding? Where an individual could be identified from a case description, a quotation or an image, is consent for publication stated?
- Participant protection. Where the study asks about trauma, self-harm, suicidality, substance use or violence, is there any account of how risk was monitored and what support was available?
- Text overlap. If you recognize material from another source, say where, and let the editor assess it. Do not report a percentage from a tool of your own.
- Image or data concerns. If a figure appears altered, or results appear implausibly clean or internally inconsistent, describe exactly what you observed and leave the conclusion to the editor.
- Undisclosed interests. If you know of a relationship the manuscript does not declare, tell the editor.
Writing the review
A good review is one an author can act on. Structure it so the editor can see at a glance what is material and what is not.
What to include
- A short summary of what the manuscript does, in your own words. It shows the authors what came across.
- Major points — the concerns that bear on the conclusions, numbered, each with the section or page it refers to.
- Minor points — clarifications, presentation, missing detail, kept separate from the major ones.
- What is done well. An editor weighing two reviews needs to know what you thought held up, not only what did not.
- Confidential comments to the editor, where you have something that should not go to the authors.
What to leave out
- Remarks about the authors rather than the work — their institution, their English, their seniority or their publication record.
- Requests to cite your own work unless the citation genuinely serves the manuscript’s argument. Coercive citation is reported to the editorial office.
- A demand for the study you would have run. Assess the study in front of you.
- The decision. Do not tell the authors what the outcome will be; that is the editor’s to communicate.
- Copy-editing the whole manuscript. Note that language revision is needed and give examples rather than rewriting it.
Write the review you would want to receive. Anonymity is not a reason to be less careful about how a point is put.
Recommendation categories
Advice to the editor about what the manuscript needs.
The editor’s, taken with all the reviews and the journal’s requirements in hand.
| Recommendation | Use it when |
|---|---|
| Accept | You have no substantive concern. Rare, and worth saying plainly when it is true. |
| Minor revision | The conclusions hold. What is needed is clarification, additional reporting or presentation. |
| Major revision | The work could be publishable, but a concern bearing on the conclusions has to be addressed first. Say what would satisfy you. |
| Reject | The concern is not one a revision can resolve, or the work is outside the journal’s remit. Say which. |
Where your recommendation and your comments point in different directions, the comments are what the editor will act on. Make sure they say what you mean.
After submitting the review
- Delete the files. After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
- Expect the decision to differ from your recommendation. The editor has the other reviews and the journal’s requirements; a decision that does not follow your advice is not a disregard of it.
- Reviewing a revision. Assess whether the points you raised have been addressed, rather than opening new ground that could have been raised the first time.
- Reviewer records. The journal keeps a record of review activity in the submission system. Reviewers who would like confirmation of a completed review for their own records can request it from the editorial office.
Researchers who would like to review for the journal are invited to write to the editorial office at [email protected] with their areas of expertise and, where available, an ORCID iD.
Reviewer tools and support
Use ManuscriptZone to access assignments and submit reports. The report-writing guidance above provides a structure for constructive comments. A review-report template and technical assistance may be requested from [email protected].
Consult COPE's reviewer guidance and the journal's editorial policies. Agree a realistic due date when accepting an invitation and notify the handling editor promptly if circumstances change.
Related pages
A review the author can act on is the one that helps
Questions about an invitation, a conflict, or a concern you would rather raise privately go to the editorial office at [email protected]. The editorial policies carry every rule this page summarizes.
Journal of Human Psychology (JHP) · ISSN 2644-1101 · Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302 · Published by Open Access Pub · Content licensed CC BY 4.0, authors retain copyright