Editorial Resources for Journal of Psychological Disorders
JPD editors make high impact decisions that shape the field. This resource hub brings together tools, guidance, and contacts to help editors work efficiently, consistently, and with confidence.
Tools for Effective Editorial Decisions
Editorial Policies
Use the JPD editorial policies for guidance on ethics, consent, conflicts of interest, and correction processes. These policies define the standards we apply to every submission.
Ethics and Integrity Checks
Review ethical approvals, consent documentation, and reporting transparency. Flag any concerns early so the editorial office can support the appropriate next steps.
Reviewer Matching
Select reviewers with relevant clinical or research expertise and avoid conflicts. Balanced reviewer selection improves the depth and fairness of peer review.
Decision Support
Use decision templates and structured feedback to summarize reviewer input and provide clear recommendations for authors.
Editorial Workflow Support
Core resources that keep review cycles on track.
Training and Onboarding
New editors receive a clear overview of the workflow, reviewer selection practices, and common decision pathways. If you need a refresher, request a briefing from the editorial office.
Conflicts and Recusal
Declare any conflict of interest promptly and recuse yourself when appropriate. This protects the integrity of JPD decisions and the trust of authors and readers.
Reporting and Transparency
Encourage authors to provide clear methods, data availability statements, and transparent reporting. Well documented research improves reproducibility and impact.
Escalation Support
If you encounter ethical concerns or reviewer disputes, contact [email protected]. The editorial office can advise on next steps and keep decisions consistent.
Decision Consistency
Use shared decision criteria to weigh novelty, rigor, and clinical relevance. When recommendations vary across reviewers, explain the evidence behind your decision so authors understand the path forward.
Reviewer Development
If feedback is incomplete or biased, request an additional reviewer. We welcome suggestions for new reviewers so the community grows and editorial workload remains balanced.
Strong editorial tools free you to focus on what matters most: rigorous, ethical, and clinically meaningful scholarship.
Need an Editorial Resource?
We can provide templates, checklists, and policy references on request. Email [email protected] or review the core guidance pages below. We aim to respond within 1-2 business days.
