Editorial Policies

The Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH) follows rigorous editorial policies designed to ensure academic quality, transparency, ethical integrity, and fairness throughout the publication process. The predecessor website emphasizes editorial screening, plagiarism checking, ethical compliance, and double-blind peer review as central pillars of the journal’s workflow. These policies have been expanded and modernized to align with current international standards, including those set by COPE, ICMJE, WAME, and DOAJ.

Editorial Mission and Principles

APMH’s editorial mission is grounded in three principles:

  • Maintaining scientific excellence through rigorous selection and expert peer review.
  • Ensuring ethical and transparent publishing that protects research integrity and public trust.
  • Promoting global accessibility through open access, inclusive authorship, and equitable practices.

These principles guide every stage of manuscript handling, from submission to final publication.

Editorial Structure

The editorial board includes the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board Members, Reviewers, and Advisory Consultants. Each role has specific responsibilities:

  • Editor-in-Chief: Final authority on publication decisions; ensures editorial independence.
  • Associate Editors: Manage peer review, evaluate submissions, and recommend decisions.
  • Editorial Board Members: Provide domain expertise, review manuscripts, and guide journal development.
  • Reviewers: Conduct objective evaluations based on methodology, clarity, originality, and impact.
  • Advisors: Offer strategic guidance and support emerging topic areas.

All editorial decisions are based solely on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, without influence from commercial, political, or personal considerations.

Editorial Independence

APMH maintains strict editorial independence. The publisher does not influence editorial decisions, and no manuscripts are accepted or rejected based on revenue considerations (e.g., APC payments). Decisions are made solely on scientific quality, ethical soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

APMH affirms that editorial decisions are independent of advertising, sponsorship, or funding.

Editorial Workflow Overview

Stage Description
Submission Manuscript submitted via online system or email; automated confirmation sent to authors.
Initial Screening Editor evaluates scope alignment, formatting, originality, ethical compliance, and English clarity.
Plagiarism Check iThenticate or similar tools used; similarity reports reviewed by editors. (as noted in old website statements)
Peer Review Double-blind process with at least two independent reviewers.
Decision Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject based on reviewers’ evaluations.
Revision Authors respond to comments; editorial re-evaluation may require multiple rounds.
Acceptance Final editing, proofreading, metadata verification, DOI assignment.
Publication Online publication with immediate open-access availability.

Peer Review Process

APMH uses a double-blind peer review system to minimize bias. See the dedicated Peer Review Policy page for details. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, ethical qualifications, and prior performance.

Review quality is monitored, and reviewers may be removed for unethical conduct, consistently low-quality reviews, or confidentiality breaches.

Plagiarism and Originality Standards

The journal enforces a strict anti-plagiarism policy:

  • All submissions undergo similarity checks.
  • Plagiarism, duplication, salami slicing, and text recycling are prohibited.
  • Authors must disclose overlapping publications.

If plagiarism is detected, the editorial office may reject the submission, request revision, or initiate COPE-aligned procedures for severe cases.

Ethical Compliance Requirements

APMH requires authors to adhere to international ethics standards:

  • Institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee approval for human subjects research.
  • Informed consent and assent for minors involved in research.
  • Clinical Trials must include registration details.
  • Case reports require appropriate patient or guardian consent.
  • Data must be accurate, unmanipulated, and reproducible.

The journal follows COPE flowcharts for addressing ethical misconduct or complaints.

Data Transparency and Availability

Authors are strongly encouraged to share data publicly when ethically and legally permissible. Accepted repositories include:

  • Figshare
  • Dryad
  • Zenodo
  • Institutional repositories
  • Subject repositories (e.g., PsyArXiv)

A Data Availability Statement (DAS) is recommended for all submissions.

Author Responsibilities

Authors must ensure:

  • The work is original and free from plagiarism.
  • All authors meet authorship criteria.
  • Conflicts of interest are disclosed.
  • Funding sources are transparently reported.
  • All data and materials comply with ethical standards.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.
  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid sharing manuscripts.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Report ethical concerns or suspected misconduct.

Editorial Conflict of Interest Policy

Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist (personal, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships).

Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Actions

In alignment with COPE guidelines:

  • Corrections: Published when minor errors do not compromise validity.
  • Retractions: Issued when data or ethics breaches invalidate findings.
  • Expressions of Concern: Published when investigations are ongoing.

Retractions clearly state the reason and are permanently available.

Real-World Scenario

Scenario: A research group submits a manuscript on adolescent depression interventions. During initial screening, the editor notices unclear ethics approval details. The team is contacted, clarification is provided, and the submission proceeds. After double-blind review, major methodological improvements are recommended. The authors revise thoroughly, the manuscript is accepted, assigned a DOI, and published. Later, policy makers in the authors’ country cite the article in national mental health strategy discussions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Does the publisher influence editorial decisions?
No. Editorial decisions are fully independent and based solely on scholarly merit.
Q: Can authors suggest reviewers?
Yes, authors may suggest reviewers; however, the editor may or may not use them.
Q: Are reviewer identities revealed?
No. APMH operates a double-blind system.
Q: Does APMH allow appeals?
Yes. Authors may request re-evaluation with justification.
Q: Are manuscripts ever withdrawn during review?
Yes, at the authors’ request; see the Withdrawal Policy page for details.

Conclusion

The editorial policies of APMH provide a framework for transparent, ethical, and high-quality scholarly communication. By upholding international publishing standards and strengthening editorial integrity, the journal fosters trust, enhances scientific rigor, and supports the global mental health research community.