Review
Dear authors, before submitting your manuscript, we strongly recommend you to read below the criteria on the basis of which reviewers decide whether to accept a manuscript for review. This significantly increases the chances of your manuscript to be published.
Preliminary review checklist
Criteria
- Anti-plagiarism check.
The article must be completely original. The acceptable citation level is up to 10%. - Relevance of the material proposed by the author.
How relevant is the topic of the article and is it of interest to modern psychotherapy? - Scientific novelty.
How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area? - Language and style of the article.
Is the text clear and easy to read, the language scientific, the presentation logical? - The article's compliance with one of the types presented in the PST classifier.
Main review checklist
You can read below or download in PDF.
Criteria
Author Guidelines Requirements
01. Does the content of the manuscript correspond to the declared manuscript type from the PST classifier?
02. Does the structure of the manuscript comply with the requirements for volume and structure of the corresponding type from the PST classifier?
03. Does the information about the authors meet the requirements?
04. Are patient privacy and other ethical requirements met?
Format
05. Are the tables, graphs and figures formatted correctly?
06. Are the citations formatted correctly?
07. Is the bibliography formatted correctly?
Content
08. Does the Clinical impact statement correspond to the content of the manuscript?
09. Language:
9.1. Are there any expressions in the text that are inconsistent with scientific style?
9.2. Is there any text in the text that can be removed without losing the scientific value of the manuscript?
9.3. Are there any sentences in the manuscript whose meaning is unclear or ambiguous?
10. Tables and illustrations:
10.1. Are they clear?
10.2. Are they necessary or redundant?
11. How relevant and accessible are the links?
12. Do the keywords accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
Separate sections
13 Title:
13.1. How accurately does it reflect the topic of the manuscript?
13.2. Does it contain keywords that will help the manuscript be found in search engines?
14. Does the abstract provide a clear and informative summary of the manuscript ?
15. Introduction
15.1. Does it summarize recent research related to the topic?
15.2. Does it point out gaps or contradictions in current knowledge?
15.3. Does it articulate the originality of the research objectives and the need for research in the subject area?
15.4. Does it provide a clear indication of the reasons for conducting the research and the novelty and relevance of the manuscript?
16. Conclusions:
16.1. To what extent are they justified and consistent with the results of the study?
16.2. Are other conclusions possible that have not been adequately covered?
17. To what extent does each section of the manuscript meet the content and length requirements of the Author Guidelines? Are there any sections that need to be shortened, expanded, or improved in content?
For quantitative research
A. How relevant is the research design to the subject matter?
B. To what extent does the sample quantitatively and qualitatively correspond to the subject of the study?
C. How relevant are the statistical methods to the subject of the study?
D. Is there enough data on which to base conclusions?
E. How accurately are the research results processed?
F. Are there any contradictions between the various data and between the data and the conclusions?
G. If you were to replicate this study, is there any data you would be missing?
H. Introduction:
H1. How well are the results of the study summarized?
H2. How clear and informative is the introduction? Does it encourage you to read the manuscript?
I. Results: Are they presented clearly and systematically? Are the main findings presented first and the secondary findings after?
J. Discussion:
J1. Are the conclusions consistent with the hypotheses?
J2. Is the interpretation of the results consistent with the statistical data obtained? Are there other possible interpretations of the statistical data that have not been adequately covered?
J3. Are all the topics mentioned in the introduction discussed in the discussion?
J4. Does the information about the results contain new meanings or are they simply copied from the Results section?
J5. Does the rhetoric of interpretations correspond to the strength and significance of the results obtained?
J6. Is the discussion of possible applications of the research results reasonable and far-sighted?
J7. Are the limitations of the study presented in a reasonable and useful manner?
J8. Are the questions for future research in this area indicated?
18. Final assessment of the manuscript on the whole
If your have ani questions feel free to contact us at mail@psychotherapyscience.today.
