Peer-Review Policy

Peer-Review Policy

Peer-Review Policy

The Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology (NNJP) follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to maintain the highest standards of scientific quality, originality, and ethical integrity.

1. Review Type by Article Category

  • Original Research Articles – Double-blind peer review
    (Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.)
  • Review Articles and Case Reports – Single-blind peer review
    (Reviewers are aware of author identities; authors do not know reviewers.)
  • Invited Editorials, Commentaries, and Letters – Editorial or open review
    (Handled directly by editors or invited expert reviewers who may sign their reports.)
  • Fast-Track Submissions – Double-blind peer review with an expedited decision timeline (typically within 30–45 days).

2. Determination of Review Type

The editorial board assigns the appropriate peer-review model based on the manuscript type at the time of submission. This approach ensures that each manuscript is reviewed fairly, ethically, and in accordance with its scientific nature.

3. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
If reviewers disagree substantially, a third reviewer or a section editor is consulted to reach a final decision.

4. Review Timeframes

  • Initial editorial screening: within 10 days of submission.
  • Standard peer review: initial decision within 4–6 weeks after reviewer assignment.
  • Fast-track review: decision within 2–3 weeks of submission.
  • Revision assessment: authors are expected to resubmit revisions within 2 weeks (minor) or 4 weeks (major).

These timeframes may vary slightly depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, but the editorial team strives to ensure a timely process.

5. Reviewer Selection and Management

NNJP manages the peer-review process through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
If suitable reviewers are not available within the journal’s network, qualified experts from external reviewer databases may be invited.
External reviewers receive a modest honorarium in recognition of their contribution, regardless of recommendation.

All review reports are anonymized by default, unless a reviewer chooses to disclose their identity.

6. Peer-Review Models Supported

To promote inclusivity and transparency, NNJP supports several review models:

  • Single-blind review: Reviewer identities are hidden from authors.
  • Double-blind review: Both parties remain anonymous.
  • Open peer review: Reviewer names and comments are published with the article.
  • Transparent review: Reviewer identities are hidden, but anonymized reports accompany the published article.

The specific model applied to each manuscript type is detailed above.

7. Editorial Decision Process

  1. Initial Assessment: The editorial office screens manuscripts for scope, quality, and ethical compliance.
  2. Reviewer Evaluation: At least two reviewers independently assess originality, methodology, and clarity.
  3. Editorial Deliberation: Section or associate editors synthesize reviewer input and make a recommendation.
  4. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on scientific validity and contribution, not perceived impact.

8. Editorial Oversight

  • Editor-in-Chief – Oversees the entire peer-review process and ensures adherence to ethical and professional standards.
  • Section Editors – Manage manuscripts within their specialized domains.
  • Associate Editors – Serve as handling editors and coordinate communication between reviewers and authors.

NNJP’s editorial team ensures that all reviews are fair, unbiased, and conducted according to COPE and DOAJ ethical guidelines.