What is Double-Blind Peer Review?
A double-blind peer review is an academic evaluation method designed to ensure an unbiased, fair, and objective assessment. Under this model, neither the authors nor the reviewers have access to each other's identities at any point in the evaluation. This framework minimizes bias, prevents personal or institutional conflicts of interest, and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated purely on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to the fields of counseling and psychotherapy..

Peer Review Policy & Principles
The International Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy (IJCP) implements a thorough evaluation workflow based on this double-blind standard to maintain the highest publication quality. The foundational principles of our peer-review process are detailed below:

• Double-Blind Framework: The managing editor removes all author names, institutional affiliations, and identifying metadata from the manuscript file prior to initiating the external review.
• Independent Evaluation: Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with verified expertise in counseling and psychotherapy. The full list of our qualified review panel can be viewed on the Peer Reviewers page.
• Editorial Authority: The final editorial decision (acceptance or rejection) is determined by the Editorial Board based on the reviewers’ objective assessments and recommendations. Detailed instructions are available in the Reviewer Guidelines.
• Transparency & Appeals: Review outcomes and constructive feedback are communicated transparently to authors. In alignment with IJCP’s Editorial Decision Policy, authors who believe an editorial rejection resulted from a substantial factual error, significant misunderstanding of scientific evidence, or procedural irregularity may submit a formal written appeal with point-by-point empirical justifications within 14 days of receiving the official decision notice. Re-evaluation is granted strictly at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

IJCP Peer-Review Workflow
All submitted papers undergo a complete evaluation flow as outlined below:

 

The peer review process described above is detailed below:

• Manuscript Submission (Route 1): The author officially submits the manuscript through the IJCP Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
• Initial Screening and Selection / Desk Review (Route 2): The managing editor and editorial team conduct an initial desk screening to verify scope alignment and basic formatting requirements. Each submission undergoes a rigorous plagiarism assessment utilizing Turnitin. Editors retain the authority to reject a manuscript at this stage (desk rejection) or advance it to the formal peer-review stage.
• Peer-Review Stage (Route 3-4): The manuscript is assigned to at least two independent external peer reviewers for rigorous substantive evaluation.
• Editorial Notification (Route 5): Based on the collective evaluation and comments from the reviewers, the editor issues a formal notification to the author specifying whether the manuscript has been accepted, requires revision, or has been rejected.
• Manuscript Revision (by Author): The author addresses the reviewers' feedback and implements the required modifications within the stipulated timeframe.
• Revision Submission (Route 1): The author resubmits the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments through the OJS platform, following a similar flow to the initial submission.
• Final Acceptance (Route 6): If the peer reviewers and editors are fully satisfied that all scientific and structural concerns have been resolved, a formal notification of acceptance is sent by the editor.
• Production and Publication (Route 7 & 8): The accepted manuscript undergoes professional galley proofing, typesetting, and final online publication.

Notes on Timeline:
Steps 1 through 5 constitute a single round of the peer-review process.
The average time for the peer-review process is 2–3 weeks from assignment to the initial editorial decision.

Editorial Decision Categories
The IJCP Editor synthesizes the detailed assessments provided by peer reviewers to render one of the following decisions:

• Accepted, as it is: The journal will publish the manuscript in its current form without further modifications.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions: The journal will proceed with publication pending minor textual, structural, or stylistic corrections to be completed within the designated timeframe.
• Accepted with Major Revisions: The journal will reconsider the manuscript for publication only after the authors execute significant methodological, analytical, or structural revisions requested by the reviewers and editors.
• Resubmit (Conditional Rejection): The journal declines the manuscript in its current state, but remains open to receiving a thoroughly revised version as a completely new submission in a subsequent round of review.
• Rejected (Outright Rejection): The journal will not publish or reconsider the manuscript due to critical conceptual, methodological, or ethical deficiencies.

The peer-review process policy at IJCP is officially established by the editorial management to guarantee academic integrity, transparency, and high publication quality. The final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, guided by the objective assessments and recommendations of the peer reviewers. The Editorial Board does not engage in post-decision correspondence or appeals regarding rejected manuscripts; however, all compiled review feedback and specific reasons for rejection are transparently communicated to the authors through the system. Adherence to this policy reflects IJCP's ongoing commitment to upholding internationally recognized scientific standards.