GUIDELINES FOR EDITOR

International Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy (IJCP) editors are experts in their fields and are in charge of the peer-review process and the journal's content. Their role is to handle manuscript peer review, make recommendations on paper acceptance or rejection, and attract high-quality submissions. IJCP has established a policy on editor guidelines, based on the following authoritative sources:

B. Duties of Editors
1. Publication Decisions:
The editor of the International Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy (IJCP) is solely responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts should be published. These decisions must be based on the scholarly merit and relevance of the work to researchers and readers. The editor may be guided by the journal’s editorial board policies and legal considerations, such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may also consult with other editors or reviewers when making these decisions.

2. Peer Review:
The IJCP editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary, the editor should seek additional opinions.

The editor shall select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practices to avoid selecting fraudulent reviewers. All disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers will be reviewed by the editor to assess any potential bias.

3. Fair Play:
The IJCP editor shall evaluate manuscripts solely on intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The journal’s editorial policies should promote transparency and honest, complete reporting. The editor shall ensure that both peer reviewers and authors clearly understand the expectations placed upon them. All journal communications shall be conducted through the journal’s standard electronic submission system.

The editor, together with the publisher, shall establish a transparent mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions.

4. Confidentiality:
The IJCP editor must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials and communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional cases, and with the publisher's consent, limited information may be shared with editors of other journals, institutions, or organisations investigating suspected research misconduct to facilitate ethical investigations.

Unless the journal operates an open peer-review system or reviewers have agreed to disclose their identities, the editor must protect reviewers' anonymity.

Unpublished material disclosed in manuscripts must not be used by editors for their own research without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be exploited for personal gain.

5. Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Editorial Process:
A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors must not upload any manuscript content into generative AI tools, as this may violate authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, could breach data privacy laws.

This confidentiality extends to all communications regarding the manuscript, including notification or decision letters, which may contain sensitive information about the manuscript and authors. Editors should therefore avoid uploading such correspondence into AI tools, even for language or readability improvements.

Peer review is central to the scientific process, and IJCP adheres to the highest standards of integrity in this regard. The editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript requires critical thinking and original judgment responsibilities that lie solely with human editors. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must not be used by editors to assist in manuscript evaluation or decision-making, as they may yield incomplete, inaccurate, or biased conclusions. The IJCP editor remains fully responsible and accountable for the editorial process, final decisions, and communications with authors.

The IJCP Editors are advised to consult the journal’s detailed policy on the use of generative AI technologies (Visit the generative AI policies for journals page to review our generative AI policy for editors).

6. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest:
Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be declared to the publisher in writing prior to the appointment of the IJCP editor, and updated whenever new conflicts arise. The publisher may publish such declarations in the journal.

The IJCP editor must not be involved in decisions regarding manuscripts they have authored, manuscripts authored by family members or colleagues, or manuscripts related to products or services in which the editor has a personal interest. Such submissions must undergo the journal’s standard procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups. A clear statement to this effect must be included in any such published manuscript.
The IJCP editor shall enforce the journal’s policy regarding the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

7. Vigilance over the Published Record:
The IJCP editor should actively safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct, including research, publication, reviewer, and editorial misconduct, in collaboration with the publisher (or society).

This process generally involves contacting the authors and carefully reviewing the complaint or claims. It may also involve communication with relevant institutions and research bodies. The IJCP editor shall utilise the publisher’s misconduct detection systems, such as plagiarism checks, as appropriate.
When presented with convincing evidence of misconduct, the IJCP editor should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promptly issue corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other appropriate amendments to the scholarly record.

Choosing Reviewers

  • Received an assignment from the Editor in Chief to handle the reviewed manuscript the suitability of the scope and format of writing by the Editorial Team.
  • Looking for prospective Peer-Reviewers that match the topic of the assigned manuscript, as well as invited and assigned them.
  • Editors should ensure that appropriate reviewers are chosen for submissions (i.e., individuals who can judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests).
  • Editors should preferably select at least two reviewers to submit a report and ensure that not all of the reviewers chosen are suggested by the paper's authors, unless there is a compelling reason.
  • Editors should stop using reviewers who routinely generate rude, low-quality, or late reviews.
  • Editors should find possible new reviewers from various sources (not just personal relationships) (e.g., author suggestions, bibliographic databases).

Review Process

  • Continuously check whether the invited Peer-Reviewers have reviewed manuscripts assigned to the Editor. If the Reviewers do not have to return comments within the assigned time range, it can be done through a reminder (Reminder).
  • Editors should promptly deal with any papers assigned to them, aiming for an initial decision within a month.
  • Editors should make every effort to handle all papers assigned to them, regardless of the subject area, and the return of a paper to a Section Editor for reassignment should be rare. Section Editors make every effort to assign articles correctly while also balancing the workloads of individual editors throughout the Editorial Board; yet, the assignment of a paper whose scope is outside the area of the allocated Editor is occasionally inevitable.
  • Suppose Peer-Reviewers have returned their comments and recommendations, and according to the Editor, this is enough to make a decision (temporary or final). In that case, the Editor immediately decides (temporarily) on the manuscript, whether it is rejected or not, needs major revision or minor revision, or is accepted. Usually, very few direct manuscripts are accepted. If the decision is Minor Revision (OJS: Revision Required), then submit a revision from the author reviewed by the Associate Editor without being returned to the Peer-Reviewers (except in exceptional cases where there are doubts that need further consideration). If the decision of the Major Revision (OJS: Resubmit for Review), then submitting a revision from the author needs to be reviewed by Per-Reviewers (technically: select the manuscript file from the author, transferred to the Second Round review process, and an invitation to review again (with the same Reviewer as the First Round, or maybe if forced to change), and the author must revise again according to Ronde's comments Second).
  • Suppose the improvements to the manuscript from the author are good enough and appropriate. In that case, the Editor/Editor in Chief makes or chooses the final decision, whether accepted (Accepted) or rejected (Decline or Reject). Then the Associate Editor gives a notification, Acceptance/Rejection Letter to the author.
  • Editors should offer written feedback to authors on every choice taken, even if that conclusion appears to be evident from reviewers' remarks. One or two words summarising the reviewers' views is sufficient.
  • Editors should be prepared to defend any significant variation from the Peer Review Process specified
  • Before examining a proposal, editors should require reviewers to identify any possible competing interests.
  • Editors should monitor peer reviewers' performance and take steps to ensure it is of a high standard.
  • Editors should encourage reviewers to comment on
    • Ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g., unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation, and presentation)
    • Verifying the originality of contributions, as well as being aware of duplicate publishing and plagiarism

Decisions

  • Editors' recommendations to accept or reject a manuscript for publication should be based on peer reviews and their assessment of the work's importance, originality, and clarity and the study's validity and relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Editors can propose that a paper be rejected immediately if the content does not satisfy the International Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy (IJCP).
  • Editors should not overturn an acceptance decision unless severe flaws with the material are discovered.
  • Unless substantial flaws are uncovered, new editors should not override prior editors' decisions to publish submissions.
  • Suspected misbehaviour or disputed authorship should be reported to the editor-in-chief or the publisher.
  • In some instances, the Editor can ask for advice or discuss with the Editor in Chief and/or discuss a decision on a manuscript.

Open Journal System (OJS) Editor's Guide

STAGE 1 – Submitting Articles for Review by Reviewers

  • The Editor accepts submissions from the Editor in Chief.
  • After the submission process by the author has been completed in the journal configuration, the submission will appear on the "Unassigned" or "In Review" list on the editor page.
  • Click on the title to find submissions on the “Summary” page.
  • Check whether the manuscript complies with the journal guidelines. Please review the manuscript based on the form and the comments (if any).
  • Add discussions in the Pre-Review Discussion section
  • Click on “Select reviewer” to choose an article reviewer
  • Click assign on the name of the Reviewer you want to appoint
  • After the Reviewer has been fixed, specify the length of the review period (due date), then use the letter icon under the "Request" heading to create a request message for each Reviewer to consider taking the offered review process.
  • Once the email has been sent to the Reviewer, they can either take or reject the review by selecting the URL link in the request message.

STAGE 2 – Receive Review Results and Send Review Results

  • Reviewers conduct reviews. Upon receipt of the requested email to the Reviewer, the Reviewer will access the URL and see a list of steps.
  • These steps must be followed in order, starting with confirmation that the review request is accepted, and then completing the review. After the review is complete, the Editor will be able to see the results on the submission review page.
  • Reviewers' recommendations are available in "Recommendation."
  • The review results can be seen by clicking on the results of the "review."
  • Editors record decisions. After the entire review process is complete, the Editor must record the editorial decision using the "Select Decision" pulldown menu and the "Record Decision" button.
  • In this section, it is also very important to notify the Author of the results. Click the letter icon next to "Notify Author."

STAGE 3 – Article Editing

  • After the “Accept Submission” decision has been recorded. Editors can select the submitted version under “Editor Decision” to be sent to the Copyeditor. This will move the submission from the “In Review” list to the “In Editing” list.
  • Make sure the file sent is the latest file that has been revised, then click "send to copyediting."
  • Editing submissions. Editing consists of Copyediting, Scheduling, Layout, and Proofreading processes. Depending on the journal's configuration, these steps can be handled by the Editor or delegated to additional users. The current configuration is that the Editor will carry out the entire editing process.
  • Scheduling allows the Editor to choose which "Issues" the submission will be published.
  • Under "Layout," the submitted version that is ready to be presented can be uploaded as a "Galley."
  • "Issues" can be created by selecting the "Create Issue" link in the sidebar or the Editor page at the bottom of the submission list.
  • Publication of Issues. Once all eligible submissions have been scheduled according to a particular issue, the Editor can publish the issue by clicking "Future Issues" (via the sidebar or via the Editor page) and selecting the issue in question.
  • After selecting the issue, a table of contents page will appear. Click the “Publish Issue” link to publish the issue.
  • Finished