Journal of Clinical Psychology and Cognitive Science

Sign up for email alert when new content gets added: Sign up

The success of Pulsus Group is a direct reflection of our dedicated team of peer reviewers who critically evaluate manuscript submissions. These reviews assist the Editorial Boards in making publication decisions, and guide authors in strengthening their professional writing. Reviewers provide objective, insightful and rigorous critiques of submitted manuscripts, enhancing the clinical relevance and scientific quality of articles published in Pulsus journals, and helping physicians, scientists, health care prfessionals and those in related professions advance quality and innovation in patient care.

All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the protocol outlined below. Please note that special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer-review protocols involving, for example, guest editors, conference organizers or scientific committees. This will be communicated to the contributing authors in these cases.


The Editors-in-Chief evaluates all manuscripts on initial submission. Manuscripts rejected before being sent to review generally have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are assigned to an Associate Editor, who will select two (or more) peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter.

Pulsus Group generally uses ‘single blind’ reviewing, in which the referees and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

Pulsus Group attempts to prevent conflicts of interest by not inviting reviewers from the same institution(s) as the authors. However, previous relationships or places of employment may not be apparent. In our invitation to potential reviewers, we ask that they decline to review if they know or can reasonably guess the identity of the author.


Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript/study:
•Is original, relatively novel or at least not a repetition of well-known or previously reported phenomena andtreatment strategies;
•Is methodologically sound;
•Adheres to appropriate ethical guidelines;
•Reports results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions; and
•Correctly cites and references previous relevant work.
Editorial decisions are not based on counting votes or performing numerical rank assessments. The strength of thearguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors are evaluated. Pulsus Group’s primary responsibilities are toits readers and to the scientific community at large and, in deciding how best to serve them, each journal must weigh the claims of each manuscript against the many others also under consideration. However, when reviewers agree toassess a manuscript, the journal considers this a commitment to review subsequent revisions; the journal endeavours to keep consultation to an absolute minimum to avoid drawing authors and reviewers into any protracted disputes.Reviewers will not be sent revised manuscripts unless the authors have made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction/revision is not part of the peer-review process.

Once the appropriate reviewers have been identified, they are sent an invitation and asked to respond within one week to 10 days (at which point it will be sent to an alternate). Reviewers who accept the invitation are asked to complete the review within 14 days. Reviewers who agree to evaluate manuscripts but do not return comments by the due date may be replaced with alternates to maintain the timelines of review process. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, an additional expert opinion will be sought.

There are several possible decisions: to accept or reject the manuscript outright; to request minor or major revisions; and to accept or reject after revision(s). Referees and/or Associate Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript. This decision will be sent to the author in addition to any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees. Reviewers and editors are expected to provide comments and critiques in a confidential, constructive, prompt and unbiased manner appropriate for their position of responsibility. Collegiality, respect for the author’s dignity, and the search for ways to improve the quality of the manuscript should characterize the review process.

The ideal review should answer the following questions:
•Who will be interested in reading the article, and why?
•What are the main claims of the article and how significant are they?
•Are the claims novel? Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
•Are there other experiments or work that would strengthen the article?
•Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
•If the manuscript is unacceptable, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to resubmit?
•If the manuscript is unacceptable but promising, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable?

If an author wishes to appeal an outcome of peer review, they should contact the appropriate Editor-in-Chief and detail his/her concern. Appeals will only be successful if reviews were inadequate or unjust. Should this be the case, the manuscript will be sent to alternate reviewers for re-review.

Reviewers are sent invitations through the respective Editorial Manager system. Questions about submitting comments through Pulsus (the publisher) may be directed to [email protected]

If you are not currently a referee for a Pulsus jounal but would like to be added to the list of referees, please contact Assistant Managing Editor of the journal at [email protected]  

  • Subscribe
  • Register
  • Sign up for eTOC Shopping Cart