Question and relevance
Consider whether the research question and rationale are clear, and whether the manuscript makes a substantive contribution to psychotherapy practice or research within the journal’s scope.
International Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research
Reviewer Guidelines
Guidance for reviewers invited to assess psychotherapy practice and research submitted to IJPR. Reviewers advise the editor through impartial, confidential and constructive assessment.
Invitation
Decide before accepting a review.
Accept an invitation only when the manuscript fits the reviewer’s expertise, can be assessed independently, and can be reviewed within the date requested in the invitation. Decline promptly when these conditions are not met.
Check fit
Consider whether the topic and methods are within the reviewer’s relevant psychotherapy, mental-health, clinical or research expertise.
Check availability
Complete the review by the date in the invitation. If more time is needed, contact the assigned editor or editorial office before the due date.
Check independence
Decline if a recent collaboration, competitive relationship, financial interest or other connection could affect impartial assessment.
Protect the record
Keep the invitation and manuscript within the review process. Do not begin if confidential handling cannot be maintained.
Manuscript assessment
Assess the work, not the author.
IJPR’s current reviewer guidance identifies scientific validity, methodology, data analysis, conclusions and relevance to psychotherapy as central considerations. Comments should identify strengths as well as actionable weaknesses.
Methods and reporting
Consider whether the design, participant selection, measures, analysis and reporting support the stated research question and permit the conclusions drawn.
Interpretation and limitations
Assess whether claims are proportionate to the evidence, limitations are addressed, and clinical implications do not exceed what the study can support.
Presentation and sources
Consider the clarity of the manuscript, tables, figures, references and supplementary material. Identify a clarity problem specifically; do not treat a non-native writing style as a proxy for scholarly merit.
- State the evidence or manuscript location supporting an important comment.
- Distinguish material concerns from smaller suggestions.
- Use the published Aims and Scope when relevance is uncertain.
- Keep the assessment focused on the manuscript rather than reputation or institutional prestige.
Confidentiality and participant protection
Handle unpublished and sensitive material with care.
IJPR’s existing guidance requires reviewers not to share a submission, discuss its content with colleagues, or use unpublished material without explicit permission. This applies equally to highly sensitive psychotherapy and mental-health research material.
Confidential material
Do not forward, discuss or use an unpublished manuscript, its data or its ideas outside the authorised review process. Do not contact authors directly unless the editorial office has authorised that contact.
AI and external tools
Do not upload manuscript content, review text or confidential data to external AI tools without written authorisation from the editorial office.
Co-review and consultation
Do not share the manuscript or involve a co-reviewer without prior approval from the assigned editor.
Clinical and lived-experience material
Consider direct and indirect identification risks in case descriptions, therapy records, transcripts, quotations, dates, locations, rare events and distinctive narrative details. Use respectful, non-stigmatising language when discussing diagnosis, trauma, abuse, self-harm, culture, identity or treatment outcomes.
Review report
Make feedback specific, respectful and usable.
IJPR asks reviewers to give constructive, actionable feedback and to distinguish major concerns from minor suggestions. A useful review explains why a point matters and, where possible, identifies the relevant part of the manuscript.
Recommendation and editorial judgement
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Use the recommendation options in the review form and support the selected recommendation with clear, evidence-based reasons.
Comments for authors
Write author-facing feedback as an explanation of strengths, concerns and requested clarification. Keep the language professional and evidence-based; avoid personal or dismissive remarks.
Confidential comments for editors
Where the review form provides a separate confidential field, use it only for information the editor needs to assess the review. Do not use either field for unsupported allegations or personal criticism.
References and revisions
Recommend a citation only when it is directly relevant to the manuscript’s evidence or argument. When reviewing a revision, assess whether the material concerns raised have been addressed and whether new changes affect the interpretation.
Research integrity
Raise a concern confidentially; do not investigate it independently.
When a manuscript appears to raise a possible concern, record the relevant evidence in confidential communication to the assigned editor through the invitation channel. Do not contact authors, institutions or other third parties directly.
What may need attention
Possible overlap or duplicate publication, fabricated or unreliable data, unethical research, inadequate consent or de-identification, image concerns, and claims about treatment, diagnosis, risk or clinical outcomes that are not supported by the reported evidence.
What to communicate
Report suspected misconduct confidentially to the assigned editor or editorial office. Do not contact authors, institutions or third parties directly. Describe the concern and the material that prompted it in neutral, specific terms.
Editorial independence
Base the review on scholarly quality, ethics, relevance and evidence. Article processing charges, waiver requests, author reputation, institutional prestige and commercial considerations must not affect a reviewer’s assessment.
When a procedure is unclear
Follow the assignment instructions and request clarification before taking an action outside the review. A question about the current procedure can be sent to the IJPR editorial office.
Journal context
Use the relevant IJPR guidance.
These pages provide the journal context reviewers should consider alongside the manuscript and the instructions in an individual review invitation.
Aims & Scope
Check the psychotherapy remit and scope boundaries.
Instructions for Authors
Review manuscript-preparation and sensitive-material guidance.
Editorial Policies
Read the current journal policy record.
Editors’ Guidelines
See the related editorial-facing guidance.
IJPR journal home
Return to the journal’s public information.
Reviewer application
Use the vetted IJPR reviewer-application route.
Interested in reviewing for IJPR?
Prospective reviewers can apply through the journal’s vetted reviewer-application route. Reviewing does not affect consideration of a reviewer’s own submissions.
Apply to review for IJPR International Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research · ISSN 2574-612X · Single-blind (double-blind on request)