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 in alignment with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) standards.

1. Review Type by Article Category

To best evaluate diverse scholarly contributions, NNJP applies structured review frameworks tailored to specific manuscript types:

  • Original Research Articles & Study Protocols: Evaluated via a strict double-blind peer-review model (where both authors and reviewers remain completely anonymous).
  • Systematic Reviews, Methods, & Clinical Trials: Evaluated via rigorous double-blind peer review.
  • Review Articles, Mini Reviews, Hypothesis and Theory, & Case Reports: Evaluated via single-blind peer review (where reviewers are aware of author identities to assess authority and context, but author identities remain hidden from the public).
  • Invited Editorials, General Commentaries, & Letters: Handled directly by handling editors or invited expert reviewers who may choose to sign their evaluation reports.
  • Fast-Track Submissions: Processed via double-blind peer review with an expedited decision timeline (typically within 30 to 45 days).

2. Determination of Review Type

The editorial board assigns the appropriate peer-review model based on the manuscript category during initial submission. This flexible yet rigorous framework ensures that each submission is evaluated fairly and in accordance with its specific methodological requirements.

3. Number of Reviewers

  • Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers holding relevant domain expertise.
  • In the event of substantial disagreement between reviewers, a third independent reviewer or a senior section editor is consulted to adjudicate and guide the final editorial decision.

4. Review Timeframes

  • Initial Editorial Screening: Completed within 10 days of submission.
  • Standard Peer Review: Initial decision rendered within 4 to 6 weeks following reviewer assignment.
  • Fast-Track Review: Decision rendered within 2 to 3 weeks of submission.
  • Revision Assessment: Authors are expected to resubmit minor revisions within 2 weeks and major revisions within 4 weeks.
  • Note: While timeframes may occasionally vary based on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, the editorial team actively monitors workflows to ensure prompt communication.

5. Reviewer Selection and Management

  • Platform Management: NNJP manages all peer-review workflows through the secure Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
  • Expertise & Ethics: Reviewers are selected based on demonstrated subject-matter expertise, recent publication records, and a strict absence of competing interests. External experts from global academic databases may be invited if specialized network coverage is required.
  • Review Reports: All review reports are treated as confidential documents. While standard reviews remain anonymized, reviewers may opt to disclose their identities under open review frameworks.

6. Supported Peer-Review Models

To accommodate diverse scholarly practices, NNJP supports the following formal review models across specific article categories:

  • Single-blind review: Author identities are known to reviewers; reviewer identities remain hidden from authors.
  • Double-blind review: Both author and reviewer identities are completely masked.
  • Open peer review: Reviewer names and unedited review reports are published alongside the final article.
  • Transparent review: Reviewer identities remain hidden, but structured, anonymized review reports accompany the published article.

7. Editorial Decision Process

  1. Initial Assessment: The editorial office screens all incoming submissions for journal scope adherence, academic quality, plagiarism screening, and ethical compliance.
  2. Reviewer Evaluation: At least two independent domain experts evaluate the manuscript's originality, methodological rigor, and clarity.
  3. Editorial Deliberation: Handling editors synthesize reviewer feedback, recommendations, and empirical scores.
  4. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publishing decision based strictly on scientific validity, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution—never on perceived commercial impact.

8. Editorial Oversight & Governance

  • Editor-in-Chief: Oversees the global peer-review ecosystem and ensures uncompromising adherence to ethical publishing guidelines.
  • Section Editors: Manage specialized manuscript domains within clinical, cognitive, and psychobiological sub-disciplines.
  • Associate Editors: Act as primary handling editors to coordinate direct communication between authors and peer reviewers.

Contact Information: For inquiries regarding the peer-review process, please contact the editorial office at njp@thenaturenurture.org.