PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The International Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy (IJCP) is a double-blind, peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the IJCP is subject to a rigorous peer review process involving two or more reviewers with expertise comparable to that of the author. This process aims to assess the paper’s suitability for publication, ensuring academic quality and credibility. The peer review process of the IJCP follows the ethical guidelines and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adheres to the Elsevier publishing policies outlined below:

The IJCP peer review process follows a structured workflow consisting of 12 systematic steps, as outlined below:

Manuscript Submission

The corresponding author submits the manuscript through IJCP’s online submission system. Authors must ensure that their submission complies with the journal’s formatting and ethical requirements, as outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Initial Editorial Screening

The Editorial Office conducts a preliminary screening to verify the manuscript’s completeness, formatting consistency, and basic policy compliance (e.g., plagiarism checks). No evaluation of scientific content is performed at this stage.

Editor-in-Chief (EIC) Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) performs an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, and whether it demonstrates sufficient originality and relevance. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

Assignment to Section Editor

If the manuscript passes the EIC’s evaluation, it is assigned to a Section Editor with subject-matter expertise. The Section Editor further evaluates the manuscript for disciplinary relevance and scientific merit before advancing it to peer review.

Assignment to Associate Editor (AE)

The Section Editor assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor (AE), also referred to as the handling editor, who manages the peer review process. The AE serves as the main liaison between the reviewers and the authors during the review phase.

Reviewer Invitation

The Associate Editor selects and invites two or more qualified reviewers based on subject expertise and publication history. Invitations are issued through the journal’s online platform.

Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers assess their availability, potential conflicts of interest, and subject matter suitability. They may accept or decline the invitation. If declining, they are encouraged to recommend alternative reviewers.

Review Process

Accepted reviewers conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript, often involving multiple readings. They provide a structured critique and submit a formal recommendation:

  • Accept (Accept Submission): The manuscript is accepted in its current form with no further changes required. The editorial team will notify the author, who must submit the final version of the manuscript within 1–2 weeks. Failure to meet the deadline or to inform the editorial board of delays may result in withdrawal from publication.
  • Accept with Revisions (Revision Required): The manuscript is accepted on the condition that minor or major revisions are completed. The author must revise the manuscript accordingly. The revised version will be evaluated by the editor, and if necessary, sent back to the reviewers to ensure all required changes have been satisfactorily addressed before final acceptance.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial changes and must be resubmitted for a full second round of peer review. Resubmission will be treated as a new submission.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal and is rejected outright. Authors will not be invited to submit a revised version.

Reviewer feedback focuses on the manuscript’s clarity, methodology, originality, ethical compliance, and overall contribution to the field.

Editorial Evaluation and Decision-Making

The Associate Editor, with input from the Section Editor if needed, reviews all peer reviewer reports and makes a recommendation to the EIC. If there is a significant divergence in reviewer opinions, an additional reviewer may be consulted. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Author Notification

The corresponding author receives a decision letter outlining the editorial outcome and including anonymized reviewer comments. Editorial decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

All feedback is constructive and intended to help authors improve the quality of their work.

Revision and Resubmission

If a revision is requested, the author must address all reviewer comments and resubmit the manuscript along with a detailed point-by-point response.

  • For major revisions, the revised manuscript is typically returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  • For minor revisions, the Associate Editor or Section Editor may conduct the final evaluation without additional external review.

Final Acceptance and Production

Once the manuscript is accepted, it moves into the production stage, managed by the Production Editor. This stage includes:

  • Copyediting and formatting
  • Proofreading
  • Layout and typesetting
  • Author proof approval
  • Online publication

The Production Editor ensures the article meets publication standards prior to release. Authors and reviewers are informed of the final decision, and reviewers may receive formal acknowledgment in accordance with journal policy.