Peer Review Process

The Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH) employs a rigorous, ethical, and transparent peer review system to ensure that published research meets internationally recognized standards of scientific quality, methodological rigor, and scholarly integrity. This document explains how manuscripts progress through the review system, the roles of editors and reviewers, and the principles guiding decision-making.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Workflow

APMH follows a multi-stage peer review process:

• Submission and pre-check
• Initial editorial assessment
• Reviewer selection and invitation
• Double-blind peer review
• Editorial decision
• Revision process (if applicable)
• Final decision and acceptance
• Proofing and publication

Each stage is designed to ensure scientific validity, ethical compliance, and content quality.

2. Submission and Initial Assessment

After submission, manuscripts undergo a technical pre-check conducted by editorial staff. They verify:

• Completeness of submission files
• Compliance with formatting guidelines
• Ethical approval documentation
• Similarity/plagiarism screening
• Adherence to research reporting standards

Submissions failing to meet essential criteria are returned for correction before being assigned to an editor.

3. Editorial Screening

The assigned Editor (or Section Editor) evaluates whether the manuscript:

• Fits the journal’s scope
• Demonstrates scientific merit and relevance
• Shows acceptable methodological quality
• Meets ethical requirements
• Is suitable for full peer review

Manuscripts may be desk rejected at this stage if they lack sufficient quality or relevance.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Editors select expert reviewers based on:

• Subject-area expertise
• Publication and research history
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Past review quality (if applicable)

APMH typically assigns two or more reviewers for each manuscript.

Reviewer Eligibility Criteria

• Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s field
• No collaboration with authors within the last three years
• No institutional ties that could bias evaluation
• Not currently competing on the same research topic

5. Double-Blind Review Process

During the double-blind review:

• Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts
• They assess methods, data, rigor, and ethics
• Provide confidential comments to editors
• Provide constructive comments for authors
• Submit a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject)

What Reviewers Evaluate

• Clarity of research question
• Soundness of study design
• Statistical and analytical quality
• Reproducibility of methods
• Transparency of data reporting
• Ethical compliance
• Novelty and significance
• Appropriateness of conclusions

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept – ready for publication
• Minor revision – needs small improvements
• Major revision – requires substantial changes
• Reject – unsuitable or fundamentally flawed

Editors consider reviewer recommendations but make independent final judgments.

7. Editorial Decision

Editors evaluate reviewer feedback, manuscript quality, and journal priorities to decide whether:

• To accept as is
• To request minor revisions
• To request major revisions
• To reject the submission
• To offer resubmission after major changes

Editors must provide a clear rationale for decisions.

8. Revision Stages

If revisions are required, authors must submit:

• A revised manuscript with tracked changes
• A detailed, point-by-point response document
• Updated ethical or methodological information if requested

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers, especially for major revisions.

9. Final Decision and Acceptance

After revisions are approved:

• The manuscript undergoes a final editorial review
• Editors verify quality, ethics, and reporting
• The manuscript is formally accepted

Accepted manuscripts enter the production phase for formatting, proofreading, and publication.

10. Appeals and Disputes

Authors may appeal decisions if they believe:

• There was a misunderstanding or factual error
• Reviewer comments were unfair or inappropriate
• Conflicts of interest may have affected judgment

Appeals must be evidence-based and addressed respectfully. Final editorial decisions are made by senior editors or the Editor-in-Chief.

11. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Ethical issues handled during review include:

• Plagiarism detection
• Data manipulation concerns
• Inadequate ethical approval
• Improper study design
• Conflicts of interest
• Inappropriate reviewer behavior

Editors must act promptly and confidentially on all concerns.

12. Misconduct Handling During Review

Suspected misconduct may lead to:

• Requests for clarification
• Temporary suspension of review
• Investigation by the journal
• Contact with authors’ institutions
• Rejection of the manuscript

Severe cases may involve expression of concern or blacklisting.

13. Peer Review Timeline

APMH aims to complete:

• Editorial screening: 3–7 days
• Reviewer assignment: 3–5 days
• Reviewer evaluation: 14–21 days
• Revision cycle: 10–30 days
• Final decision: 5–10 days

Timeframes may vary based on manuscript complexity or reviewer availability.

14. Reviewer Recognition and Contribution

APMH values reviewer contributions and may:

• Issue reviewer certificates
• Publish annual reviewer recognition lists
• Invite high-performing reviewers to editorial roles
• Nominate reviewers for Outstanding Reviewer Awards

Reviewers strengthen the journal’s scientific quality and global impact.

15. Example Workflow Illustration

Conclusion

The peer-review system at APMH prioritizes fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and scholarly rigor. Reviewers, editors, and authors collaborate to ensure that published work advances understanding, informs practice, and contributes meaningfully to global mental health research. By adhering to ethical principles and high evaluation standards, APMH maintains its position as a reliable and respected academic journal.