• Home
  • For Authors & Reviewers
  • Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the EPJ, helping in that way it to guarantee the highest possible quality of the publication. Taking into consideration the important role of reviewers in the scientific process, we would like to cite some significant issues concerning the reviewing process.

 

A) Before starting the review

  • Be sure that the article you are going to review matches your expertise, otherwise do not accept the invitation
  • You are asked to complete the review within six weeks of receipt of the manuscript.  If you think that you have not enough time for the review, please let the editor know immediately.
  • In the case you recognize the origin of the study, despite the double blind review process of the EJP, or you discover a potential conflict of interest, please declare it to the editors the soonest possible.

 

B) Conducting the review

  • Please remember that, a paper under review is confidential document and must not be shared with others.
  • In the rare situation of detecting plagiarism or duplicate submission of the same manuscript to another journal, please contact the editor.
  • Please evaluate the article on the following criteria:
  1. Paper’s originality

The articles that will be accepted for publication should be sufficiently novel and interesting for EPJ readers. You can check it by searching the literature using relevant key-words.

 

  1. Paper’s Structure
**You can use the current Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.) as your guide
  • Title: It should accurately express the article
  • Abstract: It should reveal the content of the paper, as well as, be accurate, autonomous, concise and coherent, not exceeding 250 words.
  • Introduction: it should show the importance of the problem being examined, summarize the previous research findings that form the theoretical context, as well as accurately describe the aim of the study.
  • Method: It should be appropriate for the stated aim of the study, including detailed information about participants, procedures and apparatus (when appropriate). Furthermore, details about sampling design, apparatus psychometric characteristics, as well as each step of the study should be provided. Regarding data analysis, apropriate statistics for those specific data should have been used in order the research questions to be examined. Except for the significance, the effect size should also been presented. Finally, the computer software package used for the analyses should be cited.
  • Results: the findings of the statistical analyses are presented here, without any interpretation. Results should be clear and written in a logical sequence. Moreover, tables and figures should follow appropriate style and format.
    **If you are not comfortable with statistics, please let the editor know when you send your review.
  • Discussion: this section should been associated to the theoretical framework presented in the introduction. The findings of the current study should be related to both authors’ expectations and previous research and then be critically discussed. Moreover, both the limitations of the study and the unexpected results should be reported and discussed.
  • Reference list: the references in the text should match with those in the reference section that in turn should be appropriately written.

 

3. Paper’s writing clarity and language

The writing should allow a precise, brief and accurate presentation of the study, avoiding redundancy. In the case you notice grammatical errors in the text you do not have to correct them. Nevertheless, bring it to the editor’s attention. Moreover, check the length of the manuscript that should not be longer than 25 pages. If it is over the page limit, please make suggestions for careful reduction, so as significant information not to be lost.

 

C) Writing and returning your comments

  • Please submit your “reviewer’s form” within the time limit of six weeks. If your circumstances change and you cannot complete the review in time, please contact the editorial office as soon as possible.
  • Please provide general as well as specific comments. For your specific comments identify the page, paragraph, and line number together with your comment
  • Reviews of EPJ papers are "blind", so reviewer’s identity is protected. Nevertheless, when you send your comments to the Editor, remove personal information before saving the document, so as to be sure that you maintain anonymity.
  • When you write your review, please keep in mind that the authors will read carefully your comments so as to improve their paper. For that reason, please avoid arrogant or harsh statements. Reversely, provide a logical assessment and constructive, polite comments that will be helpful for both editors and authors. Your recommendations on how the manuscript could be improved will be helpful even in case you propose its rejection.

 

D) Reviewing a manuscript for a second or third time

  • All your major concerns about the manuscript should be included in its first review. Only minor revisions should be asked for in the second/third review unless authors have made major changes in the text.

Print Email

licence

All articles published in EPJ is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND license.

Archive - Vol1, 2008

EPJ_sm

Volume 1
{1st issue}
{Special issue}

Archive - Vol2, 2009

EPJ_sm

Volume 2
{1st issue}

Archive - Vol3, 2010

EPJ_sm

Volume 3
{1st issue}

 

Archive - Vol4, 2011

EPJ_sm

Volume 4
{1st issue}

 

Archive - Vol5, 2012

EPJ_sm

Volume 5
{1st issue}

 

Archive - Vol6, 2013-2014

EPJ_sm

Volume 6
{1st issue}

 

Archive - Vol7, 2015

EPJ_sm

Volume 7
{1st issue}

 

Archive - Vol8, 2016

EPJ_sm

Volume 8
{1st issue}