Peer review process
The role of the peer reviewer is to provide an independent assessment of the work. Because the article deals with a topic within your area of expertise, you as a peer have a unique and important role in assuring the quality of the articles published by the journal.
The editorial staff obtain peer reviews from people who are academically qualified to provide relevant and useful feedback on a manuscript. As a general rule, three peer reviewers are engaged, but sometimes more.
A request to peer review can come because the author has suggested you as a peer reviewer. In some cases, members of the editorial board provide peer reviews, but most often the editorial board directs requests for peer review to other people in their professional network.
The peer reviewer is asked to review a submitted manuscript after an editor has found that it meets the minimum requirements.
The identity of the author(s) is disclosed to the peer reviewer. The reason why Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association has chosen a single-blind process is that Norway is a small country, and it is relatively easy for reviewers to discern who may have authored a given manuscript. The reviewer is required to confirm their impartiality and disclose potential conflicts of interest. By disclosing the identity of the author(s), the editorial team wants to contribute to a peer review process that is as ethical and transparent as possible.
The identity of peer reviewers will not be provided to the author(s). If you wish to discuss the manuscript with the author(s), you may submit a request to the editor. Please observe your duty of confidentiality, and do not discuss the manuscript with others.
Make sure you report possible conflicts of interest if you are in doubt. A conflict of interest can arise from personal, relational, work-related or political factors.
Your assessment of the manuscript will not be published and will only be read by the editor and author(s). You own the rights to the peer reviews you conduct for us.
As a general rule, the use of artificial intelligence in peer reviews is not permitted. Please contact the editorial office in advance if you wish to use an artificial intelligence tool in connection with the review. Please inform the author(s) and the editor as soon as possible if you have used such tools and what you have used them for. Uploading unpublished manuscripts to publicly available artificial intelligence tools is not permitted.
The use of AI involves a risk of error and bias. As a peer reviewer, you are always responsible for ensuring that the content of the review, including references, is correct and balanced.
The reviewer undertakes to carry out their review in an ethical and trustworthy manner. Peer reviewers who use the access they are given to other people's research for their own projects commit a serious ethical breach.
The editorial staff greatly appreciate a prompt response to our requests, even if you are unable to undertake the peer review assignment. In such cases, it is helpful for the editorial staff if you suggest names for alternative peer reviewers. Time is also an important factor when you agree to provide a peer review. Should you be late, please let the editor know as soon as possible. If you have the expertise to provide a peer review but realise you will not be able to do so by the stated deadline, please suggest a later deadline.
Description of the task and of the peer reviewer’s role:
Familiarise yourself with the author guidelines for Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association.
Thoroughly review the manuscript and accompanying material (figures, tables, appendices). Use the checklist you received with the manuscript as a guide for your assessment.
Feel free to contact the editor if you are unsure or have little experience in giving peer reviews. Let the editor know if anything is missing from the material you have received.
Contact the editor if you suspect unethical publishing practices, such as plagiarism or incorrect attribution of authorship. Do not investigate the matter yourself, but leave the manuscript until the matter has been clarified.
Be honest, polite and constructive. Justify your criticism and advice, preferably with literature references. Do not be afraid to be clear.
Remember that you share specific professional expertise with the author(s) which the editor does not necessarily have. Make sure to provide your peer review in a way that ensures our editorial follow-up and quality assurance.
You may provide the editor with feedback that will not be forwarded to the author(s) if you wish to do so.
As peer reviewer, you are encouraged to provide feedback on missing analyses, but be careful not to request analyses that go beyond the author's stated project (even if this is good advice). Peer reviewers should strictly adhere to the manuscript's stated problem.
Feel free to provide specific and clear advice, but be aware that the final decision on publication lies with the editor, who may assess some matters differently. The editor is not simply a messenger between peers and authors, but makes an independent editorial and professional assessment where various comments are linked together, criteria are weighed against each other, and the future fate of the manuscript is decided.
In the checklist you receive with the manuscript, you are asked to assess whether the work can be published. It is important that you state your conclusion clearly by checking the correct box.
Peer reviews should be given completely freely and independently and are not remunerated.
Important: Meet your deadlines. The authors are eagerly awaiting news about their manuscript.