Peer Review Process

NOUS: Journal of Theoretical Psychology applies a "Double-Blind Peer Review" system to ensure high standards of quality, originality, and academic integrity. The review process is conducted in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and international academic publishing standards.

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Evaluation Authors submit their manuscripts via the journal's online submission system (OJS). Each manuscript undergoes a preliminary review by the editorial office. Items checked at this stage include:

a) Compliance with the journal's scope and writing guidelines (Template, APA 7, etc.).

b) Completeness of references, ethical declarations, anonymization for blind review, and other required metadata.

c) Plagiarism Check: NOUS adopts a zero-tolerance policy towards plagiarism in accordance with publication ethics. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are screened for plagiarism using iThenticate software before the pre-review and peer-review processes begin. The overall similarity rate (excluding references) must be below 20%. Manuscripts exceeding this limit will be returned to the author and desk-rejected.

d) Manuscripts passing the preliminary review are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor and are either sent to peer review or rejected without review.

2. Peer Review Process

• 2.1. Reviewer Selection: The editor selects at least two independent reviewers relevant to the subject. Reviewers are chosen from experts in the field with no conflict of interest with the authors.

• 2.2. Double-Blind Review: Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Anonymity strengthens the objectivity and fairness of the process.

• 2.3. Evaluation Criteria: Since NOUS is a theoretical journal, reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Does the article offer a new theory, a critical view, or a unique synthesis?

  • Argumentation: Are the author's theses logically consistent? Is the theoretical framework solidly constructed? (Experimental methodology is not sought).

  • Clarity: Are arguments clear, structured, and supported by literature?

  • Ethical Compliance: Are research and publication ethics principles followed?

3. Editorial Decision Process After receiving reviewer reports, the editor reviews them and makes one of the following decisions: (i) Accept Submission (ii) Revisions Required (Minor revisions) (iii) Resubmit for Review (Major revisions requiring extensive rewriting) (iv) Decline Submission (Reject)

Note: In case of conflicting reviewer reports (one accept, one reject), the editor may appoint a third reviewer or make a final decision (casting vote) by comparing the reviewer comments.

4. Revision and Resubmission Authors revise their manuscripts based on comments from reviewers and editors. Typically, 15 days are allowed for minor revisions and 30 days for major revisions. Authors must submit a "Response Letter" detailing their responses to the reviewers' criticisms along with the revised text.

5. Process and Timeline (Targeted)

• Number of Reviewers: At least 2 independent reviewers.

• Communication: Reviewers and authors do not communicate directly; the entire process is managed through the editor.

• Evaluation Time: The target time between submission and final decision is approximately 6-10 weeks (45-75 days). However, this period may vary depending on reviewer availability.

6. Appeals and Ethics Authors wishing to appeal a rejection decision may submit a reasoned email to the editorial office. Ethical complaints and reviewer misconduct are handled confidentially in accordance with COPE guidelines.

For further information, please consult COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

 https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers