Reviewer Guidelines

Expectations and best practices for JHP peer reviewers.

Peer review is central to credible scholarly communication. JHP publishes applied research that informs clinical psychology, mental health services, community practice, public health behavior, industrial-organizational settings, and behavioral medicine. Reviewers help ensure that submissions are rigorous, ethical, and valuable to practitioners and researchers.

JHP uses single-blind peer review. Before accepting a review assignment, confirm that you have the relevant expertise, sufficient time, and no conflicts of interest.

• Accept only if you can complete the review within 14-21 days.
• Declare conflicts of interest immediately (financial, professional, or personal).
• Decline if the topic is outside your expertise or if bias cannot be avoided.
• Maintain confidentiality and do not share the manuscript or data.

Assess manuscripts holistically using the criteria below:

• Significance: Does the work address an important clinical or applied psychology problem?
• Originality: Does it offer new evidence, insight, or methodology?
• Methodology: Are design, sampling, and measures appropriate and reliable?
• Analysis: Are statistical or qualitative analyses rigorous and transparent?
• Results: Are findings reported clearly with effect sizes or credibility checks?
• Interpretation: Are conclusions supported by the data?
• Presentation: Is the manuscript well organized and comprehensible?

Use study-appropriate standards when reviewing different designs. Highlight issues that affect validity or clinical interpretability.

• Randomized or Intervention Studies: Confirm randomization procedures, allocation concealment, and consistency with CONSORT reporting. Verify that primary outcomes match preregistration.
• Observational Research: Check for adequate control of confounders, clear inclusion criteria, and appropriate statistical models.
• Qualitative Studies: Look for transparent sampling logic, analytic framework, and evidence of credibility checks such as triangulation or member validation.
• Mixed Methods: Assess whether qualitative and quantitative components are integrated and support a coherent conclusion.
• Systematic Reviews: Verify PRISMA alignment, search strategy clarity, and quality assessment of included studies.
• Implementation or Community Studies: Ensure context, equity considerations, and stakeholder engagement are well described.

Clear communication improves the clinical usefulness of research. Evaluate whether the manuscript is well structured and readable for a multidisciplinary audience.

• Check that the abstract reflects the main findings and outcomes.
• Confirm that tables and figures are legible, labeled, and consistent with the text.
• Note areas where terminology or acronyms need clarification.
• Identify sections that require tightening or reorganization to improve flow.

JHP values work that improves outcomes and practice. Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript:

• Reports clinically meaningful outcomes or patient-reported measures.
• Describes intervention feasibility, implementation steps, or service delivery impact.
• Addresses community, population health, or workplace relevance.
• Includes equity considerations and cultural context when appropriate.

Encourage authors to follow appropriate reporting guidelines and to share key details that enable replication.

• 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 studies.
• Clear statements on data availability, conflicts of interest, and funding.

If critical methodological details are missing, highlight them as major concerns and request clarification.

When applicable, assess statistical reporting for completeness and appropriateness:

• Check for effect sizes, confidence intervals, and exact p-values where relevant.
• Evaluate whether assumptions for statistical tests are met.
• Look for transparent handling of missing data and attrition.
• Confirm that tables and figures match reported results.

Some submissions require specialist input beyond a single reviewer's scope. If you identify a need for statistical, clinical, or methodological expertise, note this in confidential comments to the editor. Suggestions may include:

• Advanced biostatistical review for complex models or trials.
• Clinical domain experts for specialized patient populations.
• Methodologists for qualitative, mixed-methods, or implementation science designs.

JHP prioritizes inclusive and equitable research. Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript considers diversity and avoids biased assumptions.

• Check whether the sample represents the population discussed in the conclusions.
• Look for respectful, person-first language and accurate demographic reporting.
• Confirm that cultural or contextual factors are addressed when relevant.
• Encourage authors to discuss disparities or access barriers when appropriate.

Transparency improves trust. Encourage authors to share data or analytic code when feasible, and to justify any restrictions for sensitive clinical or workplace data. Data availability statements should be clear and specific.

Your recommendation should match the manuscript's overall quality and required revisions:

• Accept: Manuscript is sound, clearly written, and ready with minor edits.
• Minor Revision: Clarifications or small methodological updates are needed.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required for validity or interpretation.
• Reject: Serious methodological flaws, ethical issues, or poor scope fit.

Provide a brief explanation of your recommendation to help editors make a fair and consistent decision.

• Scope fit and applied relevance are clear.
• Research question and methodology are appropriate.
• Ethics, consent, and approvals are documented.
• Reporting guidelines are followed and data are transparent.
• Results and conclusions are supported by evidence.
• Limitations are acknowledged and implications are realistic.

Provide balanced feedback that helps authors improve their work while supporting editorial decision-making:

• Summary: Briefly describe the study and its main contributions.
• Major Comments: Identify issues that affect validity, ethics, or interpretation.
• Minor Comments: Note clarifications, formatting, or language improvements.
• Confidential Notes: Provide candid concerns to the editor if needed.

Confidential comments should focus on issues that are not appropriate to share directly with authors, such as suspected ethical concerns or potential conflicts of interest.

Alert the editor if you suspect ethical violations, plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication. Ensure that studies involving human participants include IRB approval and informed consent. For clinical trials, verify registration details and ethical transparency. For studies involving vulnerable populations, consider whether safeguards and consent processes are adequately described.

JHP expects respectful, professional feedback. Focus on evidence and avoid personal or dismissive language.

• Offer actionable suggestions rather than vague criticism.
• Distinguish between preferences and essential methodological corrections.
• Acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses to guide revision.
• Be mindful of cultural and disciplinary differences when assessing writing style.

Submit reviews within the requested timeframe. If an extension is needed, inform the editor as early as possible so alternative reviewers can be engaged when necessary. Timely reviews are essential for author satisfaction and journal credibility. If travel or clinical duties arise, notify the editor promptly.

All manuscripts are confidential. Do not share or use unpublished content for personal benefit. Protect data privacy and avoid storing manuscripts on shared devices or unsecured storage locations. Delete files after submitting your review to reduce risk.

JHP values reviewer contributions. Timely, high-quality reviews may be acknowledged in annual reviewer lists or considered for editorial roles. If you wish to be considered for future editorial responsibilities, indicate your interest to the editorial office. Certificates of review can be provided upon request for professional records.

Journal of Human Psychology (JHP) © 2026