Reviewer Guidlines

Peer Review Policy


The journal operates a double-blind peer-review procedure. To ensure this, authors should anonymize elements within the manuscripts that can reveal their identities, such as authors' names, institutional affiliations, contact information, and references to authors' own works. 

Peer review is a critical assessment procedure for maintaining a high standard of intellectual work. The process is designed to provide constructive critical evaluation to submissions to ensure that work achieves high academic standards. Review reports assist editors in determining the eligibility of a manuscript for publication. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening of the editors are sent out for external expert evaluation by two or more reviewers. Editors may decide to seek assistance from additional editors or reviewers before reaching a final decision. 

Peer-review reports should provide valuable information and suggestions to authors on how to improve article quality so that readers can benefit more from the article. Review reports should be presented in a professional manner and constructive manner. Not only criticism of the content, but also positive aspects of the work should be included. To this end, we advise the reviewers to include answers to the following items in their evaluation reports: a) summary of the contributions of the work to the literature, its potential impact and intended audience; b) strengths and weaknesses of the work, assessment of whether objectives of the study were achieved and whether the evidence presented supports the conclusions; c) recommendations to authors regarding methodology, findings and discussions, references, language and presentation, etc., along with suggested corrections; d) recommendations to editors on whether to request additional minor/major revisions or whether to reject the article or whether to accept the article as is, and the basis for these recommendations.

Review process is expected to be completed within 1-4 months after submission. In some cases, longer times may be unavoidable depending on feedback from reviewers, author response times to revisions, and the number of revisions.

Competing interests

If reviewers realize a competing interest that might influence the review report, they should immediately alert the editors and refrain from continuing the review. Competing interests occur when a professional decision might be affected by another interest, such as a monetary connection, an intellectual trust, or an individual relationship or competition. To maintain high levels of objectivity and credibility, we ask the reviewers to disclose any possible competing interests.


Submission content, including its abstract, ideas, and research data, should be treated as privileged information by reviewers and editors, and should not be shared with any third parties or used personally. As part of the double-blind peer-review process, authors and reviewers should be cautious not to reveal their identities. 


We request that reviewers deliver review reports on time to ensure a good publication experience for everyone. If reviewers fail to meet the review deadline, they should notify the editorial office and request an extension as soon as possible.

Structuring your review

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.


The journal for which you are reviewing might have a specific format (e.g. questionnaire) or other instructions for how to structure your feedback. Below are some general tips on what to include/consider if no other guidelines apply. 

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

  • Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)
  • Accept without revision
  • Revise â€“ either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email or contact our administrator in this contact.


The final decision

The Psikovidya editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article.  The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this function.