Evaluation format

Authors and reviewers must familiarize themselves with the article evaluation process and the criteria followed when assessing manuscripts. The key part of our editorial process is the review process, which allows us to identify the articles that meet the quality standards for publication.

The journal follows a double-blind review process; that is, neither the author nor the peer reviewer knows the identity of the other. Psicogente accepts research and review articles:

Research article: An original, unpublished work that presents the results of a concluded research project in a detailed, organized manner and includes the following sections: abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and conclusion (IMRaD).

Review article: An original, unpublished work that is the result of a study in which the most recent and relevant research works in the field in question are compiled, organized, and analyzed in a systematic manner. Review articles also present the evolution of a topic by providing a broad, updated overview of trends, disputes, and discussion.

The following should be noted:

  1. The reviewer must use the evaluation form to assess the manuscripts received.
  2. The material sent and the evaluation result subsequently disclosed should remain confidential. This information can neither be shared nor used outside this process.
  3. Confidentiality and anonymity should be preserved.
  4. The existence of any type of conflict of interest that may prevent unbiased evaluation needs to be declared.
  5. Reviewers should reject the assignment if the subject of the article is not in line with their academic profile or thematic expertise.
  6. The quality of the article must be objectively reviewed.
  7. Please be clear and technical and justify your feedback. Psicogente and the authors appreciate any comment that would contribute to improving the article.
  8. Please be objective and neutral in your reviews and provide support for your opinions and constructive comments. Psicogente requires peer reviewers to avoid making disrespectful, personal, and unnecessary comments.
  9. Refrain from making demands from authors that may exceed the research limits and objectives.
  10. Inform the editor of the existence of any similarity between the article and any other work that has been previously published or is under review.
  11. The article should be checked for plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
  12. Inform the editor of any suspicion or doubt with regard to data manipulation, data veracity, or bias in research.
  13. Check all data sources used in the article and suggest changes, if necessary.
  14. Submit the evaluations requested on time and inform the editor in advance in case of expected delays.

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when the peer reviewer is unable to assess the article objectively or impartially. This situation can arise in any of the following situations:

  1. If the reviewer has a personal, familial, professional, or commercial relationship with the author;
  2. If they work, have worked, or have published works with the author;
  3. If they plan to work with the author in a similar research project or proposal in future; and
  4. If they are currently working or have previously published on a similar subject.

Peer reviewers must report any conflict of interest to the editor, either after the invitation to review or during the evaluation process.

Evaluation form