Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Child and Youth Psychology (JCYP) operates a double-blind peer-review system to safeguard the scientific quality, reliability, and ethical integrity of its publications. Research articles and review articles considered for evaluation are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

1. Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo editorial screening before being sent for external peer review.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet basic scientific or ethical requirements, or are otherwise unsuitable for external review may be rejected without peer review or returned to the authors for correction.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript submitted for review does not contain names, affiliations, acknowledgements, project details, or other information that could directly reveal their identities. Identifying information should be provided separately from the anonymized manuscript.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected according to the topic, methodology, and scholarly field of the manuscript and should possess appropriate academic expertise in the relevant area.

Reviewer selection takes into account:

• Subject and methodological expertise,
• Academic competence and current scholarly activity,
• Ability to provide an impartial evaluation,
• Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the work,
• Quality and timeliness of previous reviews.

Authors may be permitted to suggest potential reviewers; however, the decision to invite any suggested reviewer rests solely with the editor. Author suggestions are not binding.

4. Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are expected to consider whether they have any academic, personal, institutional, or financial conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality before accepting an invitation to review.

Where an editor has a conflict of interest involving a manuscript, that editor does not participate in its review or decision-making process, and the submission is handled by another authorized editor.

5. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviews are expected to be scholarly, impartial, well-reasoned, constructive, and respectful. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, and comments unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript are not acceptable.

Reviewers are expected to assess, where relevant:

• The originality and scholarly contribution of the study,
• The theoretical and conceptual foundation,
• The research design and methodological rigor,
• The appropriateness of data analyses,
• The presentation and interpretation of findings,
• The extent to which conclusions are supported by the data,
• Compliance with ethical requirements,
• The adequacy and currency of references.

6. Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscript content must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other systems that do not provide appropriate confidentiality safeguards. Scientific evaluation and reviewer recommendations must be based on the reviewer's own expertise and must not be delegated to artificial intelligence.

Further provisions concerning reviewers' use of AI are governed by the journal's Artificial Intelligence Use Policy.

7. Review Timelines

The journal aims to complete peer review in a timely manner while maintaining the quality of scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers are expected to respond to invitations within the specified period and complete their reviews within the deadline provided. Reviewers who are unable to complete the evaluation on time should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

Additional time may be granted where appropriate, or another reviewer may be appointed to avoid unnecessary delays in the editorial process.

8. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

At the end of the review, reviewers may recommend:

• Accept as submitted,
• Minor revision,
• Major revision,
• Resubmission for further review,
• Reject.

9. Differences Between Reviewer Recommendations

Where substantial disagreement exists between reviewer reports, the editor assesses the scientific reasoning provided in each report.

Where necessary, the manuscript may be sent to a third independent reviewer or additional scholarly input may be sought from the editorial board. The final decision is based on the scientific reasoning of the reviews and editorial assessment rather than a simple numerical majority.

10. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond systematically to the comments of reviewers and editors.

Authors should describe the changes made and provide a clear scholarly justification when they choose not to implement a particular recommendation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the same reviewers or sent to new reviewers where necessary. More than one round of revision may be undertaken.

11. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Editors and editorial board members may submit manuscripts to the journal; however, they must not participate in the editorial screening, reviewer selection, peer review, or decision-making process for their own submissions.

Such submissions are independently handled by another editor without a relevant conflict of interest and are subject to the same peer-review and quality standards as all other manuscripts.

12. Manipulation of the Peer-Review Process

The creation of false reviewer identities, provision of misleading contact information, attempts by authors or third parties to influence the review process, unauthorized acquisition of confidential reviewer information, or improper influence on reviewer reports are considered breaches of publication and research ethics.

13. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant scientific or procedural error has occurred.

Disagreement with the outcome alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for reconsideration. Appeals should identify specific scholarly or procedural reasons for the request.

Wherever possible, the appeal is evaluated by an editor who has no conflict of interest and who can independently consider the grounds raised. The decision following an appeal may be considered final within the journal's editorial process.

14. Retention of Peer-Review Records

Reviewer reports, editorial decisions, and essential records related to the evaluation process are securely retained for purposes of publication ethics, quality assurance, and potential future investigation.

15. Monitoring the Quality of Peer Review

The editorial office monitors the scholarly quality, constructiveness, and timeliness of reviewer reports.

Reviewers who repeatedly submit late, superficial, scientifically inadequate, unethical, or otherwise inappropriate reports may be assigned less frequently or removed from the active reviewer pool. Reviewers who consistently provide high-quality and timely evaluations are encouraged to remain involved in the journal's reviewer community.

16. Core Principle