EDITORIAL PROCESS AND DECISION-MAKING POLICY

International Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy (IJCP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, fairness, transparency, and accountability throughout its editorial and publication processes. Editorial decisions are made independently and objectively based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
IJCP adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics standards and best practices, including:
  (1) COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
  (2) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
  (3) COPE: Responsible research publication: International standards for editors
  (4) COPE: Cope short guide to ethical editing for new editors
  (5) COPE: Cope retraction guidelines
  (6) Elsevier: Ethical Guidelines for Publication of Articles
  (7) Publication Ethics of IJCP

All editorial activities are conducted in accordance with these principles to ensure the integrity, credibility, and transparency of the scholarly publishing process.

1. Editorial Process and Decision-Making Workflow
Step 1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor to assess:
  (1) Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
  (2) Compliance with submission guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical standards;
  (3) Originality and the absence of academic misconduct; and
  (4) Overall suitability for peer review.

The screening process may include assessments for:
  (1) Plagiarism and duplicate publication;
  (2) Data fabrication and falsification;
  (3) Inappropriate authorship practices;
  (4) Citation manipulation;
  (5) Undisclosed conflicts of interest; and
  (6) Misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

Any concerns regarding research ethics, publication ethics, authorship disputes, data integrity, or other forms of misconduct will be handled in accordance with COPE principles and recommendations.

Step 2. Assignment to a Handling Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor or Associate Editor with relevant expertise. The handling editor is responsible for:
  (1) Overseeing the peer-review process;
  (2) Selecting qualified reviewers;
  (3) Monitoring the review process; and
  (4) Preparing an editorial recommendation.

Step 3. Double-Blind Peer Review
IJCP employs a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers based on the following criteria:
  (1) Originality and scholarly contribution;
  (2) Theoretical and methodological rigor;
  (3) Relevance to innovative teaching and learning research;
  (4) Quality of analysis and interpretation;
  (5) Clarity of presentation and academic writing; and
  (6) Significance for research, policy, or practice.

Reviewers are generally asked to recommend one of the following decisions:
  (1) Accept;
  (2) Minor Revision;
  (3) Major Revision; or
  (4) Reject.

Step 4. Editorial Assessment and First Decision
The handling editor evaluates the reviewer reports and submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Editorial decisions are based on:
  (1) Reviewer evaluations and recommendations;
  (2) Editorial assessment of the manuscript’s scientific quality and contribution;
  (3) Compliance with ethical and publication standards; and
  (4) Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

Possible editorial decisions include:
  (1) Accept;
  (2) Minor Revision;
  (3) Major Revision; or
  (4) Reject.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for all editorial decisions. Following the completion of the peer-review and revision process, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the handling editor and reviewer reports, makes the final publication decision. Editorial decisions may include:

Step 5. Communication with Authors
Authors are notified of the editorial decision and receive anonymous reviewer comments together with editorial recommendations. When revisions are requested, authors must submit:
  (1) A revised manuscript; and
  (2) A detailed point-by-point response letter addressing all reviewer and editor comments.

Step 6. Revision and Re-Review
Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the handling editor and/or returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions required. Additional rounds of revision and review may be conducted when necessary to ensure that manuscripts meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, and publication standards.

Step 7. Final Editorial Decision
Following the completion of the review and revision process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which includes:
  (1) Copyediting;
  (2) Proofreading;
  (3) Layout and typesetting; and
  (4) Final quality checks.

Step 8. Production and Publication Scheduling
Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication in accordance with the journal’s editorial and publication plan. Authors are notified when their manuscript enters the production stage and when it has been scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue.

2. Editorial Independence and Objectivity
The Editorial Team maintains full editorial independence in all publication decisions. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and scientific quality of submitted manuscripts. Decisions are not influenced by commercial interests, sponsorship, political considerations, personal relationships, race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, institutional affiliation, or any other non-academic factors.

3. Conflict of Interest
Editors, reviewers, and authors are required to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence their professional judgment. Individuals with conflicts of interest must not participate in the review, evaluation, or editorial decision-making process for the affected manuscript. Authors are expected to disclose any financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that may influence the conduct, interpretation, or reporting of their research.

4. Confidentiality
The Editor-in-Chief, editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and publisher must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts throughout the editorial and peer-review process. Information regarding submitted manuscripts may be disclosed only to individuals directly involved in the editorial, peer-review, production, or publication process.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished materials, data, arguments, or interpretations contained in submitted manuscripts for personal research or professional advantage without the authors’ explicit written permission. All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents and must not be shared, distributed, or discussed with unauthorized parties.

5. Research Integrity Screening
IJCP is committed to promoting research integrity and preventing academic misconduct. The journal may screen submissions for:
  (1) Plagiarism and duplicate publication;
  (2) Data fabrication and falsification;
  (3) Image manipulation;
  (4) Citation manipulation;
  (5) Authorship misconduct;
  (6) Paper mill activities;
  (7) Undisclosed conflicts of interest; and
  (8) Misuse of AI-assisted technologies.

The Editorial Team may request raw data, ethical approval documents, consent forms, or other supporting materials when concerns related to research integrity arise. Manuscripts found to violate research integrity standards may be rejected, corrected, retracted, or reported to relevant institutions, where appropriate.

6. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative AI Policy
IJCP recognizes the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in research and scholarly communication. Authors who use AI-assisted technologies during manuscript preparation must disclose such use and describe the specific purposes for which the technology was used.

AI tools may assist with:
  (1) Language editing;
  (2) Grammar correction;
  (3) Formatting assistance; and
  (4) Technical writing support.

However, the use of AI technologies is subject to the following conditions:
  (1) AI systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors;
  (2) AI systems cannot assume responsibility for the content of a manuscript;
  (3) Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all submitted content;
  (4) Authors must verify all AI-generated text, data, references, interpretations, and factual claims before submission.

The journal reserves the right to request clarification regarding the use of AI technologies.

7. Ethical Oversight for Research Involving Human Participants
Research involving human participants, personal data, educational interventions, interviews, surveys, observations, or other forms of human subject research must comply with recognized ethical standards and applicable regulations.

Where applicable, authors should provide evidence of:
  (1) Approval from an institutional ethics committee or review board;
  (2) Informed consent from participants;
  (3) Protection of participant privacy and confidentiality; and
  (4) Compliance with relevant ethical regulations and guidelines.

Failure to meet ethical requirements may result in rejection or withdrawal of the manuscript.

8. Editorial Timeline
IJCP is committed to providing a timely and efficient editorial and publication process.

Editorial Metric	Average Time
Average Days from Submission to First Editorial Decision	14 Days
Average Days for Peer Review	20 Days
Average Days from Submission to Acceptance	59 Days
Average Days from Acceptance to Online Publication	12 Days

The above timelines represent average processing times and may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

9. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made in error may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals must include:
  (1) A detailed justification;
  (2) Supporting evidence; and
  (3) A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, by independent Editorial Board members who were not involved in the original decision-making process. The outcome of the appeal review is considered final.

10. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
IJCP is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. The journal follows COPE Retraction Guidelines when addressing errors, ethical concerns, or research misconduct.

Corrections
A correction may be published when an error does not invalidate the overall findings or conclusions of the article.

Retractions
A retraction may be issued when:
  (1) Research findings are unreliable due to misconduct or major error;
  (2) Plagiarism or duplicate publication is confirmed;
  (3) Serious ethical violations are identified;
  (4) Data fabrication or falsification is discovered.

Expressions of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be published when serious allegations are under investigation but conclusive evidence is not yet available. All correction, retraction, and expression-of-concern notices will be published transparently and linked to the original article.