- The International Journal of Contemporary Psychiatry IJCP follows a double-blind peer reviewing process where authors' and reviewers' details are maintained confidential.

- Once the manuscript is submitted to the editorial office, it will be assigned to the editor-in-chief to check whether the manuscript is within the scope of the journal.

- Accordingly, reviewers will be invited depending on their area of expertise and knowledge.

Once the reviewers’ comments are received, they will be sent to the authors to make the required modifications. After the re-submission of the amended manuscript by the authors, it will be sent back again to the reviewers to check for the required modifications upon which the final decision will be taken and informed to the authors.

- Instructions for Reviewers:

• Reviewers should inform the editors if the manuscript has been already reviewed by them for any other journal or publication group and seek guidance on whether to carry it further or not.
• Reviewers should respect the privacy and confidentiality of the authors and do not disclose the manuscript information.
• Reviewers should not use the content and information for their own benefit or share with any other individual or organization.
• Reviewers must agree to review the assigned manuscript only if they have expertise in the subject area adequate for accurate assessment and give a constructive report.
• Reviewers should inform if they are involved in the submitted work in any way and decline to review the manuscript.
• Reviewers should notify the Editor instantly if they found any partial or whole information in the manuscript plagiarized.

Duration:

• Reviewers are given one month to submit their review reports.

• Reviewers should keep a copy of the review comments document for their future reference in case a revision is submitted by the author.

• Kindly respond immediately with the required information and review comments whenever the editor contacts you for the post-review process regarding the reviewed manuscript.

• Please be aware of the journal policies, regulations and guidelines.

Reviewers Guidelines:

▪ Please assess the relevance of the work to the journal & the novelty of the original articles.

▪ Please try to fulfill all these items while reviewing each section in the manuscript

Introduction:

▪ Does it cover what is already known about the topic?

▪ Is the research question or aims clearly outlined?

▪ Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic?

▪  Are the references relevant and recent?

Methods:

▪ Is the study design appropriate to answer the aim?

▪ Are the study methods valid and reliable?

▪ Is the registration trial documented?

▪ Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study?

Results:

▪ If applicable, is the process of subject selection clear?

▪  Are the variables defined and measured appropriately?

▪  Are the results stated clearly?

▪ Is the data presented in a clear and appropriate way?

Discussion:

▪ Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being over-interpreted?

Conclusions:

▪ Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study?

▪  Are the conclusions supported by the results? If not, are they supported by references?

▪  Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they

▪  Opportunities to direct future research?

References:

▪  Are the references relevant?

▪  Have key studies been referenced or is a key reference missing?

▪  Are they are put in a correct descending or ascending manner throughout the manuscript?

▪  Are they put in the correct APA style at the end of the manuscript as stated by the author's guidelines?

Title:

▪ Is the title informative and relevant?

Abstract:

▪ Does the abstract clearly summarise what the results and conclusions are and the methodology used?

▪ What did this study add to what was already known?

Overall assessment and writing your final report on the manuscript:

▪ Is the article consistent within itself?

▪ Is there anything that stands out in the author or

▪ Funder statement(s) that makes you question the objectivity of the study?

▪ Is the paper is understandable, please go through the manuscript and indicate if the paper requires any professional English editing; due to grammar, punctuation or spelling mistakes etc..

Reviewers Opinion:

• Major or Minor Revision: Common procedure under reviewing followed considering factors like English comprehension, references editing, results explanation, figure reformatting, etc.
• Reviewer Rejection: Reviewers have the capacity to make rejection for the manuscript if it is scientific concept is not proven.
• Acceptance: These manuscripts are acceptable as submitted if they are well written, easy to understand, if results support the conclusion, and add to existing published knowledge considerably.

Peer Review Report for IJCP

Manuscript title:

Review due date:

Summary statement of the article and its findings:

Major strengths of the article and what impact it

might have in the field:

Specific areas of improvement needed in the article and/or additional information and suggestions which before it can be published would improve the article):

Major points (needs for clarification, re-analysis, re-writes etc..):

Minor points (inconsistencies, major typos)

Confidential comments to the editor:

Final opinion: