Peer Review
The FORUM for Group Psychotherapies and Processes follows a rigorous double-blind peer review system, ensuring the anonymity of both the authors and reviewers to maintain objectivity and impartiality throughout the review process. Peer review provides invaluable feedback from experts in the field, fostering the journal's commitment to academic excellence and advancing group psychotherapy scholarship.
Peer review is ‘a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already know.’ PLEASE CHECK https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/06/what-is-peer-review-an-explainer/? for more explanations.
Peer review brings academic research to publication in the following ways:
- Evaluation – Peer review is an effective form of research evaluation to help select the highest quality articles for publication.
- Integrity – Peer review ensures the integrity of the publishing process and the scholarly record. Reviewers are independent of journal publications and the research being conducted.
- Quality – The filtering process and revision advice improve the quality of the final research article as well as offering the author new insights into their research methods and the results that they have compiled. Peer review gives authors access to the opinions of experts in the field who can provide support and insight.
The FORUM for Group Psychotherapies and Processes applies Double-anonymized (or double-blind) where names are hidden from both reviewers and the authors. The Editors act as a liaison between reviewers and authors, ensuring the anonymity of the whole process.
The FORUM for Group Psychotherapies and Processes invite peer-reviewers to exclude themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors and Editors are required to declare any competing interests, may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.
The FORUM for Group Psychotherapies and Processes thrives on its independence. Our strict policy is that editorial independence, decisions and content should not be compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any specific arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors. Our policy is to disclose such arrangements where there is any risk of a perception of compromise.
Peer Review Criteria
Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions on the following criteria, rating each from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent):
- Overall Presentation: Is the article well organized, well written, and easy to follow?
o Comments:
- Significance of the Problem: Does the article address important issues within the field? Does it make an original contribution?
o Comments:
- Research Question: Are the research questions clearly defined and based on a theoretical framework? If applicable, is the hypothesis clearly stated?
o Comments:
- Literature Review: Does the review clearly relate to the problem of group psychotherapy? Is it well integrated with other relevant literature?
o Comments:
- Research Design and Methodology: Is the research design adequate to answer the research question? Is the methodology sound, well described, and ethically conducted?
o Comments:
- Results: Are the data adequately analyzed and do they answer the research question? Are they well presented?
o Comments:
- Discussion and Conclusion: Are the interpretations meaningful and useful? Are the implications for theory, research, and/or practice clearly described?
o Comments:
- Additional Considerations: Does the article meet other formal requirements, such as title, abstract, references, and adherence to APA style?
o Comments:
Based on the above criteria, the reviewers provide a final recommendation based on their assessment:
- Accept as is
- Minor revisions
- Major revisions
- Reject
This structured assessment helps ensure that only high-quality, high-impact research is published in the journal, thereby maintaining academic integrity and relevance in the field.