Double-Blind Peer Review Process 
International Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy (IJCP) follows a rigorous peer review process to ensure high-quality publications. Below are the key points of the Peer Review Process:

• The IJCP adopts a double-blind review process, where both authors and reviewers will not have access to the identities of either party. The editor will remove all information related to the authors and their affiliations from the manuscript prior to the peer review process.
• Manuscripts are screened by the editorial team, reviewed by experts, and revised by authors based on feedback.
• Articles are assessed by reviewers with relevant expertise in the field of research related to the manuscript.
• The final decision (acceptance or rejection) will be made by the editorial board, considering the results of the reviews.
• There is no correspondence between authors and editors regarding manuscript rejection. Review results and reasons for rejection will be communicated to the authors.
• The editorial board makes the final decision on acceptance, rejection, or revisions based on reviewer recommendations, ensuring compliance with ethical standards and maintaining research integrity

IJCP Peer Review Process Steps:
All papers undergo full peer review. The IJCP employs a double-blind peer-review process. Detailed information about the manuscript submission flow (from author to acceptance by the editor) is shown in the following figure:

 

The peer review process described above is detailed below:

1. Manuscript Submission (by author) (route 1)
2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors) (route 2). Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript.
3. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers) (route 3-4)
4. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments) (route 5)
5. Paper Revision (by author)
6. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with the similar flow to point number 1. (route 1)
7. If the reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor). (route 6)
8. Galley proof and publishing process  (route 7 and 8)

The steps point number 1 to 5 are considered as 1 round of the peer-reviewing process (see the grey area in the figure). The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

• Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
• Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revised with stipulated time);
• Accepted by Major Revisions, the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors (let authors revised with stipulated time);
• Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes;
• Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

It is important to note that there are no direct correspondences between the authors and editors regarding manuscript rejections. Instead, authors receive information about the review results and the reasons for rejection, if applicable. The final decision on acceptance or rejection is made by the editorial boards, taking into consideration the reviewers' assessments and recommendations. This comprehensive peer review process ensures the quality, validity, and integrity of the published research in the IJCP.