Peer Review Guide

NOUS: Journal of Theoretical Psychology relies on the rigorous support of expert reviewers to maintain the scientific depth and academic standards of its publications. Our journal adopts a "Double-Blind Peer Review" system, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated solely based on their theoretical competence and originality, independent of the author's identity.

This guide outlines the responsibilities, ethical boundaries, and evaluation criteria tailored to the theoretical vision of NOUS.

1. Role of the Reviewer The primary duties expected of reviewers are: a) To provide constructive, developmental, fair, and timely feedback to authors and editors. b) To evaluate manuscripts in terms of theoretical consistency, conceptual clarity, strength of argumentation, and dialogue with the literature. c) To identify ethical violations such as plagiarism, misrepresentation of sources, citation manipulation, or conflicts of interest. d) To adhere to the principle of "confidentiality" at all stages of the review process. e) To comply with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

2. Ethical Responsibilities

  • 2.1. Objectivity and Intellectual Fairness: Base your reviews solely on the scientific content, independent of the author's identity, gender, or affiliation. Even if the work differs from your own theoretical school, respect the internal consistency of the manuscript.

  • 2.2. Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not discuss these works with third parties or use ideas from unpublished manuscripts in your own research.

  • 2.3. Time Management: Complete the review within the allotted time (usually 2–4 weeks). In case of delay, please contact the editor early.

3. Evaluation Criteria (Theoretical Focus) Since NOUS focuses on theoretical analyses rather than quantitative datasets, you are expected to structure your evaluation under the following headings:

  • a) Originality and Contribution: Does the article offer a new perspective, a new model, or a critical synthesis? Or is it merely a summary of existing literature?

  • b) Argumentation and Internal Consistency: Is there a logical flow between the author's thesis and the conclusion? Are concepts defined correctly and used consistently throughout the text? Is the text free of logical fallacies?

  • c) Structure and Language: Is the article written in an academic style? Are transitions between sections fluid? Do the title, abstract, and content correspond to each other?

  • d) Literature and Ethics: Is the bibliography up-to-date and does it cover the canonical works of the subject? Does the author correctly represent the ideas they criticize (without committing a straw man fallacy)?

4. Submission of the Review Report When submitting your report via the OJS system, please do not just select "Accept/Reject"; provide reasoned notes to help authors improve their work.

  • Decision Options: (i) Accept, (ii) Minor Revision, (iii) Major Revision (Extensive rewriting required), (iv) Reject.

  • Note: Please ensure that your name does not appear in the Word/PDF report files you upload to the system (including File Properties) to maintain anonymity.

5. Reporting Ethical Violations Inform the editor immediately if you suspect:

  • Plagiarism: Use of others' ideas without citation.

  • Source Misrepresentation: Using citations to support claims they do not actually support.

  • Conflict of Interest: If you guess the author's identity and there is a competitive/close relationship.

 

Contact Information

For any questions or suggestions regarding the peer review process, please contact the NOUS team:
info@nousjournal.org

For further guidance, consult the COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers