After a quick initial screening, each manuscript is assigned to an associate editor based on its thematic area. The associate editor then invites reviewers to submit their expert opinion on the manuscript. It is important to note that reviewers are not asked to decide whether or not the manuscript in question should be published. This is the sole responsibility of the Journal’s editorial team. Instead, reviewers are only asked to assess whether the manuscript under review and the underlying work meet certain scientific standards or whether further revisions are required to satisfy these standards. By scientific standards we primarily refer to methodological rigour, adequate sample size, sufficient statistical power, clear hypotheses, distinction between exploratory and confirmatory analyses, presentation of the theoretical background and state of the art in the field, etc. Secondary questions about the expected impact of the reviewed work in its scientific field and in other fields, as well as its relevance for society at large, are assessed through an optional rating during the review process, but in no case affect the editorial decision on publication. These ratings are intended to provide additional information to readers who wish, for example, to rank articles by their perceived impact, or to search for articles that are more socially relevant. The optional rating for the overall quality of the article is considered potentially useful for developing, in the long term, more direct ways of measuring scientific quality and impact, and eventually reducing our community’s dependence on the impact factor.
Reviewers are encouraged to focus on the weaknesses of the work and to specify ways in which it can be improved. They should be direct, concise and constructive. Note that reviews for Psicológica are published, receive a DOI and become citable items. This incentivises reviewers to produce thorough and well-argued reviews that may go beyond recommendations and include their own alternative analyses, replications, figures, etc. Like original contributions, reviews can include, in addition to a mandatory PDF file with the main text of the review, additional files with data, software code, high quality figures, etc. Reviewers are invited to use the available templates for formatting their reviews that can be accessed by following the links below.
Latex review template for Psicológica
Word review template for Psicológica
If a reviewer considers the evaluated manuscript to be of low quality and that no meaningful recommendations can be made to improve it, instead of submitting a formal review they have the option to write a confidential comment to the editor. Their name and affiliation must still be provided, but in this case neither their identity nor their comments will be disclosed to the authors. Psicológica also welcomes such comments, but it is at the discretion of the associate editor whether or not to take them into consideration.