Reviewing the articles
The evaluation of the articles submitted for publication
All articles submitted for publication to the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy undergo a process of double blind peer view. The evaluation process of the scientific works (peer-review procedure) consists of the critical analysis of the scientific manuscripts, conducted by expert evaluators, members of the Editorial and Scientific Board of the journal.
This review mechanism aims to increase the scientific quality of the materials published in the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy by:
- Selecting for publication only the scientific materials that are valuable and relevant for the journal’s topic and directions of interest.
- Rejecting the scientific materials that do not correspond to the profile of the journal;
- Improving the quality of the published materials by taking into consideration the critical opinions formulated by independent experts;
The evaluation of the scientific materials received for publication will be accomplished according to the following stages:
1. The Preliminary Stage
The authors will mandatory send the Affidavit, along with the article.
Within a maximum of seven days, the author of the article will receive a confirmation message, with information regarding the receiving of the material under good conditions and the fulfillment of the preliminary conditions for the acceptance of the article.
In this stage, the editorial board makes sure that the author has sent a unique material, which has not been published in another journal, is not under evaluation for publication in another journal from Romania or abroad and complies with the provisions of the Law 206/2004, with the subsequent additions and modifications regarding the good conduct in the scientific research.
The articles elaborated by authors who do not have the PhD scientific title (or an equivalent one) will be accepted in the scientific evaluation process only if they are accompanied by a recommendation from an expert in the field.
2. Evaluation within the Editorial Board
This stage implies the evaluation of the manuscripts by the Editor in Chief, namely by the members of the Editorial Board, in order to identify and preliminarily select the materials that fall within the topics and scientific standards of the journal.
The analysis regards criteria that refer to:
a) content: the manuscripts must approach themes from the reference field of the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy, must include elements of originality, must have a substantial scientific content, must not present major deficiencies of logical structure and scientific elaboration etc.
b) form: the manuscripts must comply with the technical conditions of editing and paging (font, paragraph, manner of inserting critical references) according to the Techno-drafting standards of the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy (described within the guidelines for authors) and include all the other necessary related components (key-words, abstract, main author’s contact information).
The manuscripts that do not comply with the minimal criteria mentioned above will be returned to the authors.
3. The evaluation of the theoretical-scientific and methodological content by independent local and foreign experts
It is conducted by two expert evaluators, members in the Editorial Board of the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy. The selection of the reviewers is made from the list of specialists who collaborate with the Journal and who have agreed to participate in the process of evaluating the articles submitted for publication in the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy.
The experts evaluate the manuscripts based on some peer-review forms, which they receive together with the articles to analyze.
The criteria that underlie the experts’ review process are:
A. The scientific quality of the article: - scientific grounding of the content; - the methodological approach and the manner of carrying out the models of analysis; - the degree of originality and the novelty of the proposed theme.
B. The relevance, impact and importance of the work: - the relevance and novelty of the sources used; - the clarity and accuracy of the argumentation and of the scientific elaboration; - the predicted impact on the fields referred to in the article.
C. The quality of the technical content: - the relevance of the bibliographical sources; - the clarity, concision and accuracy of the text; - the lack of errors, fallacious concepts and ambiguities.
This stage of evaluation is finalized by the reviewer’s punctual observations, regarding the form and substance of the article, and his/her rating:
- “accepting the work for publication”, if it corresponds from the point of view of the scientific content and form;
- “accepting the work for publication, after making some corrections, additions etc.”;
- “not accepting the work for publication”.
If there are major differences between the ratings of the two evaluators, a third expert will be turned to. The experts’ decision and recommendations will be communicated to the author.
After resending the manuscript, corrected and completed by the author, depending on the experts’ recommendations, the article will be forwarded to the same evaluators, who will decide on the opportunity of its publication.
The final approved text of the article (after the modifications suggested by the evaluators and the approval of the editorial board) will be sent to the editorial staff, which is responsible for the editorial planning and the author will be informed about the publishing date. The final decision regarding the publication of the manuscripts belongs to the Editor in Chief and/or to the Executive Editors.
The articles recommended for publication in the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy must be accompanied by the affidavit.
The accepted papers are sorted by numbers of annual issues of the journal and sent for publication to the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy.
For authors whose first language is not English, we request that you have your work proof read prior to submission by a certified translator or a native English speaker (it is best for the translator to be familiar with the psychological concepts).
Papers can be rejected due to a poor standard of English.