Peer-Review Process

Behavioral and Clinical Studies in Contemporary Psychology follows a rigorous double-blind anonymous peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, credibility, and academic integrity of published articles. In the double-blind review system, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. This process is designed to reduce bias and to promote fair, objective, and scholarly evaluation.

Each submitted manuscript first undergoes an initial editorial screening. At this stage, the editorial office or assigned editor checks whether the manuscript is complete, properly formatted, within the aims and scope of the journal, written in an appropriate academic style, and compliant with basic ethical and technical requirements. The manuscript may also be checked for similarity using iThenticate during this stage. Manuscripts that are incomplete, outside the journal’s scope, ethically problematic, or clearly below the journal’s academic standards may be rejected without external peer review.

If the manuscript passes the initial screening stage, it is assigned to an editor or section editor with relevant expertise. The editor evaluates the manuscript’s suitability for peer review and identifies appropriate reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research background, methodological knowledge, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. The journal typically sends each manuscript to two or three independent reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript carefully and constructively. Their evaluation may address the originality of the topic, significance of the research question, adequacy of the literature review, clarity of objectives, appropriateness of the methodology, quality of data analysis, ethical considerations, interpretation of findings, consistency of conclusions, quality of writing, and relevance to behavioral and clinical psychology. Reviewers may also comment on tables, figures, references, theoretical framing, clinical implications, and limitations.

After completing their evaluations, reviewers usually recommend one of the following editorial decisions: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission after substantial revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final decision. The editor considers the reviewers’ comments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, the journal’s standards, and the relevance of the study before making an editorial decision.

If revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully and respectfully to all reviewer and editor comments. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Authors should clearly indicate changes made in the manuscript and provide reasoned explanations when they disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion. Failure to respond adequately to reviewer comments may delay the review process or result in rejection.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested. In some cases, the editor may make a decision based on the revised manuscript and the authors’ response letter without sending it for another round of external review. The number of review rounds depends on the quality of the revision and the extent to which reviewer concerns have been resolved.

The journal aims to complete the process from submission to publication within approximately eight weeks. This estimated timeline includes editorial screening, peer review, author revision, final decision, copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and online publication. However, the timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, the complexity of the manuscript, and the speed of author responses.

The journal expects reviewers to provide objective, respectful, confidential, and evidence-based evaluations. Reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal advantage and must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their judgment. Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and should focus on improving the quality of the manuscript.

Editors are responsible for ensuring fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and academic quality throughout the review process. Editorial decisions are made without discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, religion, political belief, or personal characteristics of the authors. Decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript and its relevance to the journal.

Authors are expected to follow ethical research and publication standards. Manuscripts involving human participants should include appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, and protection of participant confidentiality. Clinical studies and intervention research should clearly describe ethical safeguards, participant recruitment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relevant trial or intervention procedures.

The peer-review process is intended not only to select manuscripts for publication but also to improve the quality of scholarly communication. The journal values constructive peer review as an essential part of academic publishing and encourages reviewers and authors to engage in the process with professionalism, respect, and scientific responsibility.