Editor Guidelines

Standards and expectations for JHP Editorial Board members.

As an editor, you are a steward of scholarly quality and professional ethics. JHP is committed to research that improves mental health outcomes, strengthens community wellbeing, and advances evidence-based practice across clinical psychology, public health behavior, industrial-organizational settings, and behavioral medicine. The guidance below supports consistent, fair, and timely editorial decisions.

Ensure each submission fits the JHP mandate: rigorous, applied research with clear implications for care, policy, or practice. Scope includes, but is not limited to:

• Clinical psychology, psychotherapy outcomes, and behavioral health interventions.
• Mental health services, community psychology, and population-level prevention.
• Health psychology, behavioral medicine, and chronic disease self-management.
• Industrial-organizational and workplace psychology, including wellbeing and safety.
• Cross-cultural, equity-focused, and implementation science studies.

Editors should complete an initial screening within 5 business days. Desk review should confirm scope fit, ethical compliance, and readiness for peer review. If a manuscript lacks fundamental methodological integrity or is clearly out of scope, issue a prompt desk rejection with constructive guidance.

• Verify ethical approvals, informed consent, and data availability statements.
• Check that methods are replicable and outcomes are reported transparently.
• Confirm that the manuscript is written clearly and includes required sections.
• Identify excessive overlap with prior publications or duplicate submission risks.

Editors are expected to evaluate methodological quality before sending for review. Consider the following factors when assessing rigor:

• Appropriateness of study design for the stated research question.
• Sampling adequacy, recruitment strategies, and participant flow.
• Validity and reliability of measures, including clinical instruments.
• Statistical methods, effect size reporting, and handling of missing data.
• For qualitative work, clear sampling rationale, coding framework, and credibility checks.
• For mixed methods, integration of qualitative and quantitative findings.

To support transparency, editors should verify the use of appropriate reporting standards and request checklists when needed. Encourage authors to align with:

• CONSORT for randomized and intervention studies.
• STROBE for observational and cohort research.
• PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• COREQ or SRQR for qualitative and mixed-methods designs.

When checklists are missing or incomplete, request them at revision to improve reproducibility and reader trust.

Select at least two independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the manuscript's topic and methodology. Strive for diversity in geography, discipline, and perspective. Avoid conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality throughout the process.

• Invite reviewers who have published in the topic area within the last 5 years.
• Balance methodological expertise with applied or clinical perspective.
• Monitor timelines and send reminders to maintain decision targets.
• Replace unresponsive reviewers quickly to protect author experience.
• Encourage reviewers to focus on scientific merit rather than personal preference.

Editors are responsible for the quality of peer review. Encourage reviewers to provide structured, evidence-based feedback and discourage requests that are not essential to the study's validity.

• Ask reviewers to summarize the manuscript's contribution and clinical or applied relevance.
• Require clear differentiation between major methodological issues and minor editorial comments.
• Encourage checks on reporting guidelines, statistical transparency, and ethical compliance.
• Discourage excessive requests for citations that do not change the scientific interpretation.
• Flag overly harsh or unprofessional language and request revisions if needed.

Use reviewer input, your own assessment, and editorial policy to form decisions. Document the rationale clearly and consistently to help authors understand next steps.

• Accept: Manuscript meets scientific and ethical standards with minor or no revisions.
• Minor Revision: Correctable issues that do not change the study design or core conclusions.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes needed to methods, analysis, or interpretation.
• Reject: Scope mismatch, fundamental methodological flaws, or insufficient contribution.

Decision letters should summarize the key scientific issues, specify required revisions, and maintain a professional tone. Avoid conflicting guidance when synthesizing reviewer feedback.

JHP follows COPE principles. Editors should be vigilant about ethical issues and respond decisively.

• Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submissions.
• Confirm trial registration and adherence to relevant reporting standards.
• Ensure data availability statements and conflict of interest disclosures are present.
• Protect confidentiality of reviewers and authors at all stages.
• Escalate concerns to the Editor-in-Chief when ethical violations are suspected.

JHP prioritizes research that advances practice. Encourage authors to clarify how their results influence clinical outcomes, public health behavior, or organizational decision-making.

• Request clinical or patient-reported outcomes when relevant.
• Expect implementation details that support real-world adoption.
• Ask for equity considerations and context for underserved populations.

When evaluating impact, consider whether the manuscript provides actionable recommendations, discusses feasibility, and acknowledges limitations that affect implementation in clinical or community settings.

Editors must declare any conflicts that could influence decisions. If a conflict exists, recuse yourself and notify the editorial office. Use diverse reviewers to reduce bias and ensure balanced assessments, especially for controversial topics or new methodologies.

• Acknowledge new assignments within 48 hours.
• Target first decisions within 2-3 weeks when reviewer responses permit.
• Write decision letters that are clear, respectful, and actionable.
• Summarize key revision priorities to support efficient resubmission.
• Respond promptly to reviewer or author inquiries that affect timelines.

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share content outside the editorial process, and avoid using unpublished data in your own work. If a manuscript contains sensitive clinical or workplace data, ensure reviewers understand confidentiality obligations.

Editors should stay current with advances in clinical psychology, community interventions, and behavioral medicine. Participate in editorial training, share best practices with the editorial office, and provide feedback on workflows that can improve author experience and review quality. Share reviewer nominations and emerging topics with the Editor-in-Chief.

Authors may appeal decisions with a concise, evidence-based rationale. Evaluate appeals objectively and, when appropriate, consult a second editor. Maintain a transparent record of decision factors and avoid re-litigating subjective preferences.

Special issues should align with JHP scope and demonstrate timely relevance. Editors overseeing special issues are responsible for consistent peer review, clear timelines, and uniform quality standards. Commissioned pieces should undergo the same ethical checks as unsolicited submissions.

Encourage authors to provide data, code, and materials where feasible. For sensitive clinical or workplace datasets, request a clear explanation of access restrictions and data security safeguards. When data cannot be shared, ensure that methods are fully documented to enable replication.

Editors are ambassadors for JHP. Contribute to journal visibility by recommending emerging topics, inviting high-quality submissions, and participating in scholarly networks. When appropriate, suggest expert reviewers and potential editorial board candidates who strengthen disciplinary diversity. Editors are also encouraged to identify gaps in coverage and recommend strategic calls for papers.

Journal of Human Psychology (JHP) © 2026