Information for Reviewers

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

Dusunen Adam Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences publishes high-quality research and scholarly work in psychiatry, neurology, clinical psychology, and neuroscience. The journal promotes interdisciplinary perspectives on mental health and brain sciences and prioritizes studies offering novel insights with clear relevance to clinical practice.

The journal accepts submissions in the following categories:

Research articles
Brief reports
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Letters to the editor
Guest editorials (invited, not peer-reviewed)

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) guidelines.

All submissions are evaluated for originality, methodological rigor, and ethical standards before being sent for external review. Each submission is assessed according to its type, scope, and adherence to the journal’s scientific and ethical principles.

2. PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. All submissions are initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editors for scope, originality, methodological rigor, scientific quality, and ethical compliance before being sent for external review.

Authors must confirm that the manuscript has not been published or submitted elsewhere and that all listed authors have approved the submission. Manuscripts should be submitted exclusively through the journal online submission system (eJManager), while reviewers access assignments via the Reviewer Login section on the journal’s website.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts under the supervision of a handling editor. Reviewers provide objective and constructive feedback to support editorial decisions and help authors improve their work. The handling editor reviews the reports and recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection. When revisions are requested, authors receive reviewer and editorial comments with a deadline for resubmission. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated, and additional review rounds may be conducted if needed. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editors make the final decision—acceptance, rejection, or further revision.

Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, objective, and constructive feedback that assists both the editor in making informed decisions and the authors in improving their work.

Reviewers are also responsible for identifying and reporting any potential research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplication, or unethical study design. Any conflict of interest must be declared before agreeing to review a manuscript. When reviewers seek input from a trainee or colleague, these contributions must be acknowledged in the confidential comments to the editor.

Confidentiality must be strictly maintained throughout the review process. Reviewers must not upload any part of the manuscript or their review reports to software platforms or AI-assisted technologies where confidentiality cannot be ensured. Permission from the Editorial Office is required before using any AI-based tools for language editing or assistance in preparing review reports.

3. CONDUCTING A REVIEW FOR THE JOURNAL

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of publications. When accepting or performing a review, the following principles should be observed:

Respond to the review invitation promptly and confirm availability before the deadline.
Accept the review only if the manuscript is within your area of expertise.
Disclose any potential conflict of interest (e.g., recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, or personal relationship with the authors).
Report any ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research design to the editor.
Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process; the manuscript and related materials must not be shared or discussed with anyone without prior editor approval.
Provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive feedback, avoiding personal or emotional language.
Please conduct your reviews in English and present your comments in a clear, structured, and itemized manner.
Avoid making annotations or comments directly on the manuscript file.
If you choose to upload an additional document, ensure that it does not contain any reviewer-identifying information.
Begin your review with a brief summary of the manuscript, showing you understood its aims and contribution.
Clearly identify major and minor issues, suggesting ways to strengthen the study.
Conclude with a clear recommendation: accept, revise, or reject.
When revisions are requested, be specific and transparent in outlining what needs to be improved.
Use the confidential comments to the editor section for sensitive or ethical concerns that should not be shared with the authors.

4. REVIEWER CHECKLIST

Before submitting your review, ensure that you have considered:

Conflicts of interest that could affect your objectivity.
Research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism or data manipulation.
Relevance and alignment of the manuscript with the journal’s scope and standards.
Scientific structure and clarity: clearly stated problem, methodology, results, and conclusions.
Originality and novelty of the research question and findings.
Quality of references: adequacy, accuracy, and use of primary sources.
Language and readability: clarity, coherence, and appropriate terminology.
Figures and tables: accuracy, sufficiency, and consistency with the text.
Contribution and impact: importance and potential influence on the field.
Timeliness and completeness: ensure your review is submitted within the requested deadline.