Peer review
A key convention in the publication of research is the peer review process, in which the quality and potential contribution of each manuscript is evaluated by one's peers in the scientific community.
Like other scientific journals, APA journals utilize a peer review process to guide manuscript selection and publication decisions.
Toward the goal of impartiality, the majority of APA journals follow a masked review policy, in which authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from each other. Reviewer identities are never shared unless the reviewer requests to sign their review.
APA journal reviewers are qualified individuals selected by the action editor (typically, the journal editor or associate editor) to review a manuscript on the basis of their expertise in particular content areas of their field.
The role of a peer reviewer is to highlight unique, original manuscripts that fit within the scope of the journal.
To aid the editor's objectivity, two to three peer reviewers are selected to evaluate a manuscript.
These reviewers should be able to provide fair reviews, free from conflicts of interest, as well as submit the reviews on time.
In addition to technical expertise, criteria for selection of reviewers may include familiarity with a particular controversy or attention to a balance of perspectives (APA, 2010, p. 226).
Whereas the journal editor holds final responsibility for a manuscript, the action editor usually weighs reviewers' inputs heavily.
Authors can expect their manuscripts to be reviewed fairly, in a skilled, conscientious manner. The comments received should be constructive, respectful and specific.
Reviewers must present a clear decision recommendation regarding publication, considering the quality of the manuscript, its scientific contribution, and its appropriateness for the particular journal; support the recommendation with a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the quality and coherence of the study's conceptual basis, methods, results, and interpretations; and offer specific, constructive suggestions to authors.
Journal editors may request that reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on specific criteria, which may vary across journals or for non-empirical article types, such as commentaries or reviews.
The action editor scans the paper to gain an independent view of the work. This "quick read" provides a foundation for the more thorough reading that follows — it by no means determines the final decision, but does parallel how authors can expect many reviewers (and readers) to approach their papers.
First, the editor scans the paper from beginning to end for obvious flaws in the research substance and writing style. If problems show on the surface, a deeper reading is likely to uncover other matters needing attention.
After this initial examination of your manuscript, the action editors, as well as any peer reviewers, will follow these general guidelines:
Read the abstract
Major problems in the abstract often reflect internal flaws.
The major goal in reading the abstract is to understand the research question:
- Is it clearly defined, relevant, and supported by the methodology?
- What is the sense of the research question, methodology, findings, and interpretations?
APA publication policy emphasizes conclusion-oriented abstracts: What did the research find, and what do the findings mean?
Examine the full manuscript
If it is more than 35 typed, double-spaced pages (including references, tables, and figures), this could pose a problem for some journals.
- How long are the Introduction and the Discussion sections relative to other sections of the paper?
- Does the paper adhere to journal-specific guidelines?
These guidelines can be found on the Manuscript Submission tab of each journal's webpage.
Scan the paper's headings
- Are they well organized?
- Does a clear structure emerge?
If not, the author has not achieved coherence.
Scan the references
- Are they in APA Style?
If not, the author is not using APA publication format.
Scan the tables and figures
- Do they portray the information clearly?
- Can they stand alone without captions?
- Are they well constructed and in APA Style?
A "no" to any of these questions suggests problems in the author's presentation of findings.
- If the text contains a large number of statistics, could they be more appropriately put into tables or figures?
The editor drafting the decision letter should be synthesizing the input from multiple reviewers into a cohesive list of improvements that should be made to the manuscript. Any comments from the reviewers will be appended to the official decision letter.
These categories constitute the editorial actions that may be taken on a manuscript.
Rejection
The flaws that lead to this decision generally center on substantive or methodological issues. A manuscript is usually rejected because it is outside the area of coverage of the journal; it contains serious flaws of design, methodology, analysis, or interpretation; or it is judged to make only a limited novel contribution to the field.
Revise and resubmit
In most cases, manuscripts may have publication potential but are not yet ready for final publication. The study as presented may not merit acceptance as is but may warrant consideration after substantive revision (e.g., reorganizing the conceptual structure, conducting additional experiments, or modifying analyses).
The action editor will give the author an invitation to revise and resubmit for another round of reviews (usually with the same reviewers). An action editor cannot guarantee acceptance of a revised manuscript, but authors who respond flexibly and attend closely to suggested revisions enhance their chances for an acceptance.
Authors must include a detailed cover letter outlining their responses to the revisions. Authors may receive this decision multiple times prior to acceptance.
Acceptance
In very few cases, a manuscript may be accepted for publication on first reading, with only minor revisions required. More typically, acceptances follow the successful revision of a manuscript previously rejected with invitation to revise and resubmit.
Once a manuscript is accepted and appropriate paperwork has been obtained, it enters the production phase of publication. At this point, no further changes can be made by the author other than those suggested by the copyeditor.
- Guidelines for Effective Manuscript Evaluation (from Psychotherapy)
- Current Peer Review Trends and Standards
If your manuscript is rejected, and if you believe a pertinent point was overlooked or misunderstood by the reviewers, you may appeal the editorial decision by contacting the editor responsible for the journal.
The editor might then decide to send the appeal to the (associate) editor who handled the initial submission.
If you appeal to the editor and are not satisfied with the editor's response, the next step in the APA editorial appeal procedure is to contact the APA chief editorial advisor.
If a satisfactory resolution is still not achieved, and you still believe that the process was unfair, you may appeal to the Publications and Communications (P&C) Board.
An initial review by the journals publisher and P&C Board chair and chair-elect will determine if the appeal will go before the full board for final decision.
Cases in which an appeal might not go before the full board are those in which an author submitted a manuscript against a journal’s policy (e.g., if a rejected submission was revised and submitted as a new submission without invitation to do so).