Reviewers Instructions

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Portuguese Journal of Behavioral and Social Research uses a strictly anonymous peer review process, and the reviewer's name is hidden to the author. By personal criterion, the reviewer can choose to reveal his name to the author in his commentary, but our standard policy is that identity remains hidden.

At least two reviewers evaluate each manuscript. All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible, and an editorial decision is usually achieved up to 6 weeks after submission. No person is authorized to take part in peer review if there is any interest defined as follows: consultant in journal papers, shared ownership, any close relationship with the authors, being a member of an organization whose interests may be affected by publication of the paper.

 

TOP

Review Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to observe the following ethical guidelines:

  1. Maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts. Do not share data with colleagues before the manuscript is published.
  2. Do not reproduce the manuscript.
  3. Decline if there is some prejudice against the authors or research.
  4. Decline if there is a conflict of interest, revealing the conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest can be defined as a set of conditions (e.g., academic competition, certain philosophical values, and beliefs) that may result in a biased or unfair assessment of the manuscript.
  5. Meet the deadlines and inform if it becomes impossible to complete the review in time, asking for guidance on the possibility of refusing to review the manuscript or get an additional stretch.
  6. Decline if unable to do the review within the specified period.
  7. State whether a previous revision of the manuscript has been completed for another journal.
  8. Please do not use the review to promote personal research or suggest the paper's rejection because it contradicts personal work.
 

TOP

Review Process steps

1. Providing an honest and constructive assessment of the value of the manuscript.

2. Checking if the writing style is:

  • Clear: ideas are written directly and unambiguously
  • Concise: lack of redundancy, presentation of words and phrases that simply communicate the idea
  • Correct: accurate grammar and punctuation.

3. Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the study in each section of the manuscript. For example:

  • In the Introduction, the authors provide a convincing line of argument, cite relevant sources, focus on ideas (and not on facts or findings discrete), or raise questions and derivative hypotheses from the theory?
  • In Methods, strategies are clearly described; the sample's description has sufficient detail; the measures are well operationalized and have appropriate psychometric characteristics? Are statistical methods the most appropriate and well justified?
  • Are the results presented clearly and follow the order of the research questions? Tables or figures are necessary and clear?
  • In the Discussion, the results are presented concisely and accurately, and represent the data presented previously? The results are integrated within a broader theoretical debate, including the revised references in the Introduction? Was an effort made to go beyond the facts and to present explanations? The introductory questions are answered? Were the limitations reflected?

4. Giving suggestions on how to make the manuscript more complete, relevant, and readable.

5. Asking specific questions to the authors so that they make the manuscript more relevant to the target audience, but do not ask questions just because they are attractive, respecting the study's objectives and design.

6. Checking the references and indicate further, if appropriate.

7. Indicating whether to the Editor:

  • The manuscript should be rejected in PJBSR.
  • The manuscript should be accepted conditionally.
  • The manuscript should be accepted.

The members of the Editorial Board undertake to perform 4-6 annual reviews and to do so in time. Those who consistently decline or make revisions that do not make the deadlines are asked to leave the Editorial Board.
All reviewers will be scored by the quality and timeliness (up 5 points). The quality and timeliness of reviews are essential to the enhancement of PJBSR. Reviewers who do an analysis of high value on time are providing an essential service to the journal.

 

TOP

Reviewers have the following rights:

  1. Be informed of the decision of the Editor of manuscripts that evaluated for PJBSR.
  2. Receive comments from other reviewers for their edification.
  3. A list of reviewers will be published in each journal's volume and will be recognized in Publons.
  4. The reviewers that contribute to the journal's high quality (4-5 points) may be invited to the Editorial Board of the following year.
 

TOP

Reviewers are advised to be guided by the following references

Bengtson, V. L., & MacDermid-Wadsworth, S. M. (2005). How to review a journal article: Suggestions for first-time reviewers and reminders for seasoned experts. Journal of Marriage and Family. https://www.ncfr.org/jmf/jmf-reviewers/reviewer-guidelines

Dembowski, F. L. (2010). Guidelines and advice to authors, editors, and reviewers for professional journals and conference Proposals. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 1-53. https://www.ijoi-online.org/images/IJOI/Guidelines.pdf

Ramos-Alvarez, M. M., Moreno-Fernández, M. M., Valdés-Conroy, B., & Catena, A. (2008). Criteria of the peer-review process for publication of experimental and quasi-experimental research in Psychology: A guide for creating research papers. International Journal of Clinical Psychology and Health, 8, 751-764. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=337/33712016009