Review

Dear authors, before submitting your manuscript, we strongly recommend that you read the criteria below. These criteria are used to assess manuscripts during the editorial and peer review process and may significantly increase the chances of your manuscript being accepted for publication.

Peer Review Model

Psychotherapy Science Today uses double anonymous peer review. Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Manuscripts are reviewed by reviewers from the academic community who specialize in the subject area of the submitted article.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope, ethical standards, and author guidelines.

There are no exceptions to the journal’s peer review process for materials submitted for publication.

Plagiarism Screening

The journal routinely screens article submissions for plagiarism using Crossref Similarity Check .

Average Review and Publication Time

The average time between article submission and publication is approximately 20 weeks.

Preliminary Review Checklist

Criteria

Anti-plagiarism check.
The manuscript must be original. Article submissions are routinely screened for plagiarism using Crossref Similarity Check. 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? Is the language scientific and 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

  1. Does the content of the manuscript correspond to the declared manuscript type from the PST classifier?
  2. Does the structure of the manuscript comply with the requirements for volume and structure of the corresponding type from the PST classifier?
  3. Does the information about the authors meet the requirements?
  4. Are patient privacy and other ethical requirements met?

Format

  1. Are the tables, graphs, and figures formatted correctly?
  2. Are the citations formatted correctly?
  3. Is the bibliography formatted correctly?

Content

  1. Does the Clinical Impact Statement correspond to the content of the manuscript?
  2. Language:
    1. Are there any expressions in the text that are inconsistent with scientific style?
    2. Is there any text that can be removed without losing the scientific value of the manuscript?
    3. Are there any sentences in the manuscript whose meaning is unclear or ambiguous?
  3. Tables and illustrations:
    1. Are they clear?
    2. Are they necessary or redundant?
  4. How relevant and accessible are the links?
  5. Do the keywords accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?

Separate Sections

  1. Title:
    1. How accurately does it reflect the topic of the manuscript?
    2. Does it contain keywords that will help the manuscript be found in search engines?
  2. Does the abstract provide a clear and informative summary of the manuscript?
  3. Introduction:
    1. Does it summarize recent research related to the topic?
    2. Does it point out gaps or contradictions in current knowledge?
    3. Does it articulate the originality of the research objectives and the need for research in the subject area?
    4. Does it provide a clear indication of the reasons for conducting the research and the novelty and relevance of the manuscript?
  4. Conclusions:
    1. To what extent are they justified and consistent with the results of the study?
    2. Are other conclusions possible that have not been adequately covered?
  5. 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

  1. How relevant is the research design to the subject matter?
  2. To what extent does the sample quantitatively and qualitatively correspond to the subject of the study?
  3. How relevant are the statistical methods to the subject of the study?
  4. Is there enough data on which to base conclusions?
  5. How accurately are the research results processed?
  6. Are there any contradictions between the various data and between the data and the conclusions?
  7. If you were to replicate this study, is there any data you would be missing?
  8. Introduction:
    1. How well are the results of the study summarized?
    2. How clear and informative is the introduction? Does it encourage you to read the manuscript?
  9. Results: Are they presented clearly and systematically? Are the main findings presented first and the secondary findings after?
  10. Discussion:
    1. Are the conclusions consistent with the hypotheses?
    2. 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?
    3. Are all the topics mentioned in the introduction discussed in the discussion?
    4. Does the information about the results contain new meanings, or is it simply copied from the Results section?
    5. Does the rhetoric of interpretations correspond to the strength and significance of the results obtained?
    6. Is the discussion of possible applications of the research results reasonable and far-sighted?
    7. Are the limitations of the study presented in a reasonable and useful manner?
    8. Are the questions for future research in this area indicated?

Final Assessment

Reviewers provide a final assessment of the manuscript as a whole.

If you have ani questions feel free to contact us at mail@psychotherapyscience.today.