The Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH) uses a rigorous, ethical, and fully transparent double-blind peer review system. Peer review is the foundation of scientific credibility, and APMH ensures that every manuscript is evaluated fairly, confidentially, and without bias. In alignment with global publication ethics standards—including COPE, ICMJE, and WAME—this Peer Review Policy elaborates the journal’s processes, responsibilities, timelines, reviewer selection procedures, and misconduct handling.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review ensures:

Scientific validity
Originality and contribution to the field
Ethical and methodological soundness
Clarity of presentation
Relevance to psychiatric and mental health research

The process also strengthens manuscripts by providing expert guidance for authors.

Peer Review Model: Double-Blind

APMH follows a double-blind model:

Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.

This reduces bias related to:

Institutional affiliation
Nationality
Gender or cultural identity
Career stage

Editors ensure that manuscripts are anonymized before review.

Peer Review Workflow

Stage	Description
1. Submission	Authors submit manuscripts via the online system or email. Metadata is recorded for editorial processing.
2. Initial Editorial Screening	Editors evaluate scope alignment, formatting, originality checks, ethics compliance, and clarity.
3. Reviewer Selection	Qualified experts are invited based on specialization, prior performance, and absence of conflicts of interest.
4. Double-Blind Review	Reviewers evaluate methodology, novelty, ethical compliance, quality of evidence, and rigor.
5. Editorial Decision	Editors synthesize reviewer comments to make a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
6. Revision	Authors respond to comments point-by-point and resubmit revised manuscripts.
7. Final Review	Editors or reviewers verify that revisions are complete and satisfactory.
8. Acceptance	Final files are prepared for production, metadata verification, and DOI assignment.

Reviewer Selection Process

Reviewers are selected using multiple criteria:

Subject expertise in psychiatry, psychology, neurology, or allied fields
Publication record
Prior review performance (quality and timeliness)
Independence from manuscript authors
Absence of conflicts of interest

APMH maintains a rotating reviewer database to ensure diversity and prevent overutilization of experts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

Provide objective, constructive, and scholarly feedback
Identify methodological weaknesses, ethical concerns, or inconsistencies
Verify citation accuracy and scientific validity
Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript
Return reviews within the agreed timeline
Disclose conflicts of interest

Reviewers are prohibited from:

Using unpublished data in personal research
Sharing manuscripts with unauthorized individuals
Contacting the authors directly

Editorial Responsibilities in Peer Review

Editors uphold:

Objectivity and impartiality
Confidentiality throughout the process
Fair handling of reviewer and author concerns
Compliance with ethical guidelines

Editors must recuse themselves if they have:

Collaborated with authors recently
Personal or institutional ties to authors
Financial interests related to the research

Decision Types

Accept — The manuscript meets all criteria.
Minor Revision — Limited changes required; usually reviewed by editors.
Major Revision — Substantial changes required; manuscript re-evaluated.
Reject — Manuscript does not meet standards or ethical concerns exist.

Rejection is not necessarily a reflection of poor-quality work but may relate to scope mismatch or methodological limitations.

Confidentiality Standards

APMH enforces strict confidentiality:

Reviewers must not reveal their identity.
Manuscripts must not be stored insecurely.
Review content must not be shared externally.

Confidentiality breaches may result in:

Removal from reviewer database
Formal reporting to institutions

Handling Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when a reviewer or editor has:

A financial stake in the topic
A personal or professional relationship with authors
Competing research in the same field
Institutional affiliations that compromise neutrality

When conflicts exist:

Reviewers must decline the invitation
Editors must assign alternative reviewers
Authors must disclose all conflicts fully

Timelines for Peer Review

Typical APMH review timelines:

Initial editorial screening: 3–7 days
Reviewer assignment: 2–5 days
Review period: 2–4 weeks
Revision period (authors): 1–3 weeks
Final decision: 3–10 days

Timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and revision thoroughness.

Ethical Issues Detected in Peer Review

Reviewers or editors may detect:

Plagiarism
Data fabrication
Unethical research methods
Conflict-of-interest concealment
Misleading or fraudulent reporting

APMH follows COPE flowcharts for investigation, including:

Author clarification requests
Peer reviewer consultation
Institutional notification if necessary
Rejection or retraction depending on severity

Incomplete, Poor-Quality, or Biased Reviews

APMH monitors reviewer performance. Reviews that are:

Superficial
Biased
Unprofessional
Repeatedly late

…may result in removal from the reviewer pool.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing:

A detailed rebuttal
Evidence supporting their claims
Clarifications addressing reviewer feedback

Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or independent expert.

Real-World Scenario

Scenario: A manuscript describes a new cognitive-behavioral therapy protocol for adolescent trauma survivors. The initial reviewer expresses concerns about insufficient sample size. A second reviewer finds the methodology appropriate for a pilot study. After evaluating both perspectives, the editor requests a major revision focusing on justification of sample selection and extended discussion of limitations. Following revision, the manuscript is accepted. This demonstrates balanced peer review that improves scientific quality.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Are reviewers paid?: No. APMH reviewers volunteer as part of academic service.
Q: Can authors suggest reviewers?: Yes, but editors are not obligated to use them.
Q: Can reviewers recommend rejection?: Yes. Editors consider reviewer feedback but make independent decisions.
Q: Is double-blind review always enforced?: Yes, for all article types except invited editorials.
Q: How many reviewers evaluate each article?: Typically two, but more may be assigned for complex research.

Conclusion

The peer review system at APMH is designed to uphold fairness, rigor, and scholarly excellence. By using a structured double-blind model, maintaining high ethical standards, and encouraging constructive scientific dialogue, APMH ensures that published research contributes meaningfully to psychiatry, psychology, mental health policy, and clinical practice worldwide.