TPM – Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal that emphasizes the publication of original research offering new knowledge to the fields of applied social psychology, work and organizational psychology, personality and individual differences, psychological methods.
Good manuscript revisions are essential in helping to publish accurate and innovative articles. All manuscripts submitted to TPM need to be evaluated on the basis of scientific quality and originality.
- Empirical investigations that enlarge conceptual understanding in Psychology (original studies or meta-analyses);
- Literature reviews that advance theory and/or promote novel studies;
- Proposals of new analytic methods and new measurement tools;
- Qualitative studies on subjects that are difficult to investigate with quantitative methods;
- Commentary articles of target contributions are well accepted.
Peer review process is an essential component of scholarly communication which upholds the integrity of the journal and ensures the rigorous standards of the scientific publications.
By agreeing to evaluate, the reviewer assumes the responsibility: to improve the quality and scientific rigor of the journal; and to undertake the task in a timely, constructive, thorough, and ethical manner.
When writing your review:
Before writing your review you may find it helpful to browse TPM instructions for authors, available here http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf
Please consider the following comments in preparing your review:
- Start with a brief summary about the content and findings of the article.
- Indicate the overall significance of the paper and whether it is novel or mainly a replication.
- Put the findings of the work into the context of the existing literature.
- State the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
- Does the title clearly describe the article?
- Does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
- Did the authors include the most salient key words?
- Are the theoretical framework as well as the research data and methods suitable for the problem under consideration? Are they accurately explained?
- Are the authors’ interpretations and conclusions supported by results?
- Is the information provided presented in an accurate and consistent manner?
- Give page numbers and make direct reference to the specific areas of the paper on which you are commenting.
- Offer comments on tables and figures. Are the figures and tables relevant to the discussion in the text?
- Is the manuscript written clearly and without grammatical errors?
- Are there any places where meaning is unclear? Give suggestions on how it can be improved.
When making your decision:
When making the final recommendation on the manuscript, you will be asked to choose one of the following options:
- may be published without any modifications;
- it should be changed according to the indications above;
- it should be changed according to the indications above and resubmitted to the journal;
- it is not acceptable for publication in the journal.
Adherence to publishing ethics
TPM ethical guidelines for reviewers are based on COPE’s Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. For more information see http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf
According to COPE, the reviewer should:
- write an honest critical assessment in a constructive manner (without being hostile or making derogatory personal comments). The reviewer’s job is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the research; appropriate suggestions for revision are very helpful;
- respect the confidentiality and not reveal any details of the manuscript and of its review;
- declare any potential conflict of interest to the Managing Editor;
- if plagiarism, fraud, duplicate publications, and other ethical concerns are noticed, contact the Managing Editor;
- agree to review a manuscript only if the revision can be completed on time. TPM aims to reach editorial decision quickly, and appreciates if reviewers complete the review process in 4 weeks’ time. When declining a review, feel free to provide the name of an expert who is qualified to review the manuscript;
- the reviewer should accept for review only those manuscripts in his/her areas of expertise.
Communicating your review to Editor
Once you have completed your evaluation write your report in the file provided by the Managing Editor and return it to the Managing editor (firstname.lastname@example.org). If you think you might miss your deadline let the editorial staff know.