Revision Guidelines

The Journal of Child and Youth Psychology (JCYP) regards revision as an important stage for improving the scientific quality of a manuscript in response to reviewer and editor feedback.

1. Reviewing the Revision Decision

Upon receiving a revision decision, authors should carefully review the editor's decision letter, reviewer reports, and any additional editorial instructions.

Before revising the manuscript, it may be helpful to classify all comments and identify the corresponding changes required in the manuscript.

2. Files Required for Revision

Authors are generally expected to upload:

1. Revised Anonymized Main Manuscript
2. Response to Reviewers
3. Updated supplementary files or supporting documents where required

Depending on the study, the editorial office may request updated ethics documentation, reporting checklists, data files, or other supporting materials.

3. Response to Reviewers

The Response to Reviewers document is the primary record showing how authors have addressed reviewer and editor feedback.

4. Responding to Every Comment

No reviewer or editor comment should be left unanswered. Where several comments concern the same issue, a common revision may address them, but a separate response to each comment is preferred.

Brief responses such as “corrected,” “we agree,” or “revised” are generally insufficient. Authors should explain what was changed and where the change appears in the manuscript.

5. When a Recommendation Is Not Followed

Authors are not required to follow every recommendation automatically. If a suggestion is considered scientifically, methodologically, or conceptually inappropriate, the authors should explain their reasoning respectfully and clearly.

6. Preparing the Revised Manuscript

The revised manuscript should continue to comply with all scientific and formatting requirements stated in the Author Guidelines.

Revisions should be made visible enough for editors and reviewers to identify them easily. Where requested, authors may be asked to use highlighting, coloured text, or Track Changes.

A clean version without tracked changes may be requested at the final production stage.

7. Double-Blind Review and Anonymity

The revised anonymized manuscript and any response document shared with reviewers should not include:

• Author names,
• Institutional affiliations,
• ORCID identifiers,
• E-mail addresses,
• Acknowledgements or statements that directly identify an author or institution.

8. Conflicting Reviewer Comments

Reviewers may occasionally provide different or conflicting recommendations.

In such cases, authors should not arbitrarily choose one reviewer's preference. Instead, they should explain the conflict, adopt the most scientifically appropriate solution, and describe their reasoning in the Response to Reviewers.

Where necessary, the handling editor may provide additional guidance.

9. Methodological Changes During Revision

Significant methodological changes introduced during revision should be clearly disclosed.

Examples include:

• Adding new analyses,
• Changing statistical models,
• Clarifying or revising sample information,
• Modifying variable definitions,
• Adding sensitivity or robustness analyses.

Such changes should be explained both in the Response to Reviewers and in the relevant Methods or Results sections.

10. Requests for Additional Analyses or Data

When reviewers request additional analyses or data, authors should first consider whether the request is scientifically appropriate in relation to the research questions, study design, and available data.

If the requested analysis can appropriately be conducted, results should be reported transparently. If the request is methodologically inappropriate, cannot be addressed with the available data, or extends beyond the intended scope of the study, the reason may be explained in the response.

11. Suggested References

References suggested by reviewers should be added only when they are scientifically relevant and genuinely useful to the manuscript.

Authors are not required to cite every source suggested by a reviewer. If a suggested reference is not directly relevant or lacks scholarly justification, authors may explain why it was not added.

12. Updating Ethics and Declarations

Authors should consider whether revisions affect any ethics, conflict of interest, funding, data availability, author contribution, or artificial intelligence declarations.

Where new information becomes relevant, the corresponding declarations and, if necessary, the Cover File should be updated.

13. Revision Deadline

Authors are expected to submit revisions within the deadline specified in the journal system.

If additional time is required, authors are encouraged to contact the editorial office before the deadline.

14. Second and Subsequent Revision Rounds

A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision. In later rounds, authors should preserve the record of previous responses and changes while responding separately to new editor or reviewer comments.

Subsequent reviews should primarily focus on whether previously identified major concerns have been adequately resolved.

15. Evaluation After Revision

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the same or different reviewers where appropriate.

Completion of requested revisions does not automatically guarantee acceptance. The final decision is based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, adequacy of the revisions, reviewer comments, and editorial assessment.

16. Final Check Before Resubmission

Before uploading revised files, authors should confirm that:

• Every reviewer and editor comment has been addressed,
• The location of each change has been identified,
• Recommendations not followed have been scientifically justified,
• The revised manuscript and Response to Reviewers are consistent,
• Double-blind anonymity has been preserved,
• Tables, figures, and references have been updated as necessary,
• Relevant ethics and other declarations have been updated,
• All requested supplementary documents have been uploaded.