Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Child and Youth Psychology (JCYP) regards peer review as a fundamental component of scholarly publishing quality and research integrity. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations in a manner that is scholarly, impartial, well-reasoned, constructive, confidential, and timely.

1. Considering a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider:

• Whether the manuscript falls sufficiently within their area of expertise,
• Whether they can complete the review within the specified period,
• Whether any conflict of interest could affect their impartiality,
• Whether any ethical, personal, academic, or institutional circumstance prevents them from providing an independent review.

2. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are responsible for disclosing any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of the review.

Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

• Close personal or professional relationships with the authors,
• Recent collaboration or co-authorship,
• Close involvement in the same project, research group, or institutional structure,
• Financial or professional interests,
• A direct possibility of benefiting or being disadvantaged by the study's conclusions.

If uncertain whether a circumstance constitutes a conflict, reviewers may disclose the situation to the editor and allow the editor to determine whether the review should proceed.

3. Confidentiality

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript or supplementary files with unauthorized third parties,
• use unpublished information or data from the manuscript in their own research,
• attempt to identify the authors,
• discuss the review assignment or its contents with unauthorized individuals.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, tables, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, or editorial correspondence to generative AI systems that do not provide appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Limited use of tools solely to improve spelling, grammar, or expression in a reviewer's own report may be acceptable. Any broader use of generative AI should be disclosed to the editor.

5. Scope of the Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript as a whole and consider, where relevant:

• Fit with the journal: Is the manuscript relevant to the aims and scope of JCYP?
• Originality: Does the work make an original contribution?
• Scientific significance: Is the research question or problem meaningful?
• Theoretical foundation: Is the literature current, sufficient, and critically integrated?
• Methodology: Are the research design, sample, measures, procedures, and analyses appropriate?
• Results: Are findings presented clearly and systematically?
• Discussion: Are results appropriately interpreted and integrated with the literature?
• Conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the data?
• Ethics: Have relevant research ethics requirements been addressed?
• Writing and presentation: Is the manuscript clear, coherent, and academically appropriate?

6. Methodological Evaluation of Research Articles

For research articles, reviewers should pay particular attention to whether:

• The research design is appropriate for the research questions,
• The sample or study group is adequately described,
• The sampling method is appropriate,
• Sufficient information is provided regarding the validity and reliability of measures,
• The procedure is described in sufficient detail to support evaluation and reproducibility,
• Statistical or qualitative analyses are appropriate for the research questions,
• Relevant assumptions and methodological checks have been considered,
• The findings are consistent with the methods and analyses used.

7. Evaluation of Review Articles

Review articles should provide more than a descriptive summary of existing literature. Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript offers a critical, integrative, and original synthesis of the field.

For systematic reviews, scoping reviews, or meta-analyses, reviewers should also consider:

• The transparency of the search strategy,
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria,
• The study selection process,
• Quality or risk-of-bias assessment,
• Methods of data synthesis,
• Compliance with appropriate reporting guidelines.

8. Reporting Ethical Concerns

If reviewers identify a possible ethical concern during evaluation, they should report it through the confidential comments to the editor rather than making accusatory statements to the authors.

Potential concerns may include:

• Suspected plagiarism or excessive text overlap,
• Duplicate or fragmented publication,
• Possible data fabrication or falsification,
• Problems involving ethics approval or informed consent,
• Suspicious image or data manipulation,
• Inappropriate authorship or undisclosed conflicts of interest,
• Suspicious or unverifiable references.

9. Preparing the Reviewer Report

Reviewer reports should be clear, reasoned, and useful to the authors. Unsupported comments such as “acceptable,” “inadequate,” or “needs revision” are insufficient.

A useful review may follow this structure:

1. A brief overall assessment of the study and its contribution,
2. Major scientific or methodological issues,
3. Minor comments and suggestions for clarification,
4. Confidential comments to the editor concerning ethical or editorial matters, where necessary.

Comments should be specific and, where possible, refer to the relevant section, paragraph, table, or figure.

10. Tone and Language of Reviews

Reviewers should:

• Avoid personal, dismissive, or demeaning language,
• Avoid assumptions about the competence or intentions of the authors,
• Explain recommendations using scholarly reasoning,
• Refrain from requesting unnecessary citations to their own publications.

11. Reviewer Recommendation

At the end of the evaluation, reviewers provide the editor with an overall recommendation regarding the manuscript.

• Accept as submitted: No substantive changes are required.
• Minor revision: Limited changes are required that do not alter the fundamental scientific structure of the study.
• Major revision: Substantial scientific or methodological revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
• Resubmission for further review: Substantial changes are required and the revised manuscript should undergo further peer review.
• Reject: The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, or ethical problems in its current form.

12. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When a revised manuscript is returned for review, reviewers should first consider the authors' responses to previous comments and the corresponding changes in the manuscript.

Authors are not required to accept every recommendation. Reviewers should consider whether alternative decisions have been supported by adequate scholarly reasoning.

Subsequent reviews should focus primarily on whether the major concerns raised previously have been adequately addressed rather than introducing unnecessary new requirements.

13. Review Timelines

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the deadline stated in the journal system. If additional time is required, the editorial office should be informed as early as possible.

If a reviewer becomes unable to complete the review, notifying the editorial office promptly allows another reviewer to be appointed without unnecessary delay.

14. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Confidential comments to the editor are not shown to the authors. This section may be used particularly for:

• Ethical concerns,
• Conflicts of interest,
• Sensitive information regarding the review process,
• Scholarly considerations relevant to the editorial decision that should not be communicated directly to the authors.

However, scientific criticisms that can help improve the manuscript should, whenever possible, also be communicated clearly to the authors.

15. Core Principle of Reviewing