It is a collaborative process in which independent reviewers or evaluators with expertise on the topic offer constructive, respectful and honest recommendations and comments on the articles submitted to the Journal. This process helps to ensure the quality of the research meeting the standards established by research in the field and by the Journal. Reviewers critically read the work and identify areas of strengths, as well as areas for improvement. The recommendations of the reviewers offer input to the Editorial Team on the quality of the article and its suitability for publication in the Journal.

Participation in the peer review process provides reviewers the opportunity to know first-hand the research carried out in their area of interest and expertise, expand the relationship networks through dialogue between authors-reviewers-editorial committee and improve academic writing skills.

Here are some considerations.

Before review

Please take in consideration the following before accepting an invitation to review a paper:

1. Expertise area: Is the topic of the article related to your area of expertise or knowledge? Reviewers are required to be knowledgeable about the topic presented in the article so that they can conduct a review based on knowledge and experience.

2. Conflict of interest: Is there a potential conflict of interest with the work submitted or the authors of the article? Do you have prior knowledge of the project that is being presented or do you know the authors of the articles?

3. Time available: Do you have the availability to do the review within the deadline established by the Editor? If you are unable to review it, it is important that you notify the Editorial Team promptly in order to prevent delay of the evaluation process. In the case, you are unable to conduct the review, you can also suggest to the Editorial Team names of expert colleagues who could do the review.

If you decide to do the review, you must access the Journal webpage to create an account and password (if you do not have one beforehand) that will give you access to the manuscript and the evaluation form. It is important that you notify the Editorial Team if you will be able to make the evaluation in the specified time.

During the review

It is recommended that the reviewers make a first reading of the manuscript, and after a short period of time, conduct a second reading and complete the evaluation. In this period of time, the reviewers can reflect and think about the areas of strength and improvement of the article. Be sure to review the entire article.

1. Does the title clearly describe the purpose of the article?

2. Does the abstract reflect the content of the article?

3. Would the article be of interest to the journal’s readers?

4. What is the main question that the article tries to answer?

5. Does the article present an innovative topic or methodology that adds to the existing literature? Does the article help to expand the area of knowledge?

6. Is the argument clearly presented in the introduction? Is the gap or conflict in the literature identified? Does it establish the originality of the research in the area?

7. Is the literature review up-to-date and relevant to the research topic?

8. Does the problem statement, the hypotheses and/or objectives are clear? Are they well grounded in the theory and available literature?

9. Is the method and procedure information presented appropriately so that the research can be replicated and robust to reach conclusions?

10. Is the methodology of the article adequate to answer the research question? Does it leave out methodological considerations that influence the study area?

11. Are possible ethical issues identified in the research process?

12. Are statistical or qualitative analyzes appropriate? Are they presented appropriately? Are there any inconsistencies in the analyzes and results presented?

13. Does the article present sufficient data?

14. Does the article present only confirmatory data that do not add much to the current understanding of the subject of study?

15. If the results do not agree with the available evidence, do the authors present solid arguments regarding this?

16. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Are the conclusions of the article based on the analyzes carried out and the results obtained?

17. Are the references appropriate and updated according to the topic presented in the article?

18. Are the references presented in the appropriate format?

19. Do the tables and figures add important information to the article? Are the results in the tables possible? Are there any inconsistencies or errors?

20. Is the article complete? Are all expected parts of an article included?

21. Is the article well written? Is it clear and easy to read?

22. Is the information presented in the article original or is there any suspicion of similarity with any other published work (either by the same author or by other authors)? If there is suspicion of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, notify the Editor.

After the review

Once the manuscript has been reviewed, be sure to clearly present the recommendations for the authors and the comments for the Editor of the article. Enter the Journal’s platform to provide comments for both the authors and the Editorial Team in the corresponding boxes. We do not recommend making changes directly to the authors’ manuscript through the “track changes” option. It is preferable that as you read the article, you write down your comments and suggestions in a separate document and then clearly summarize the recommendations to the authors and the Editor.

1. Use a constructive and positive tone in your evaluation. Your evaluation must be critical, but at the same time sensitive to the work of the colleagues. Remember that your comments should encourage improvement of the article.

2. Briefly summarize the purpose of the study and the main findings. Please, tell how significant these results are in light of the available evidence and whether the findings are innovative or confirmatory of what already exists.

3. Point out the strengths and quality of the study.

4. Summarize the weaknesses or areas for improvement of the article, or the area that the authors should give special consideration.

5. Do not make general or very vague comments in the evaluation. The comments made should allow the authors to clearly understand what actions they should take to improve the article.

Examples of positive comments/feedback to articles

• The topic presented in the article is very important and the authors have made a significant contribution to it.
• This manuscript meets all the standards expected of a publishable work. I recommend that this work be published after some areas for improvement and minor comments are addressed.
• This work is very well written and identifies a significant knowledge gap in the area of X.
• Given the complexity presented in the article, the authors have achieved positive results including the literature review that presents a look at current research, which is useful for researchers and practitioners in this area.

Constructive comments/feedback examples

• The article would be significantly improved if more detail were added about…
• I would suggest that the authors revise the introduction of the work to adapt it more to the purposes of the study.
• In the discussion section, I would have liked the authors to have more information about…
• In the discussion section, the authors point out that… However, I do not believe that the article contains robust data to demonstrate this premise.
• For the article to be publishable, the authors would need to answer and address the following points in the manuscript…

6. Use the comments for the authors as an opportunity to request clarification on any point of the article or to suggest further elaboration.

7. When appropriate, make concrete suggestions on how the authors can improve the clarity of the manuscript.

8. If you do not agree with some of the authors’ statements, you can present your opinion in this regard, but always supporting it with available evidence.

9. If there are other relevant works that the authors have not contemplated in their manuscript, you can suggest them for consultation and inclusion.

10. Make sure not to focus your review and comments solely and exclusively on aspects of format or writing. Although it is true that this is an important aspect in the quality of a manuscript, the task of the expert reviewer should be aimed at critically evaluating the conceptual and methodological quality of the work. You can suggest to the authors a comprehensive revision or change in format and wording. Examples:

• The article would benefit from an editorial review. It includes numerous linguistic and grammatical errors that make reading difficult.
• The article would improve substantially if stylistic changes are made to the wording to make it clearer and to present a solid argument on the topic to be studied.

11. After the evaluation, the reviewers must recommend to the Editorial Team a decision on the article. Here are the available options:

• Accept the submission: The article is ready to be published in its current format.
• Publishable with modifications: The article may be ready to publish after minor changes. It is important that the authors are provided with a detailed list of the changes to be made.
• Re-evaluate (Review and Resubmit): The article needs substantial changes (rewrite a section, add more literature, review the data) before it is ready for publication. Authors are encouraged to review the manuscript and submit it as a new submission to begin the editorial process.
• Not publishable: The article is not ready to be published in this Journal or the changes to be made to it are so profound that the manuscript cannot be considered in its current form.

12. When making the decision, consider the points made in the evaluation for the reviewers. Remember that in addition to the evaluation you submit on the platform of the Journal addressed to the authors, you can also offer direct recommendations to the Editor. These recommendations will only be between the reviewer and the Editor.

Publishing recommendations

The Puerto Rican Journal of Psychology (reps) Editorial Board is presenting the following definitions to support reviewers when making the decision on the final recommendation after evaluating the manuscript. These are some examples to provide clarity, but do not represent all possibilities.

1. Accept in its current state: The article in its current state can be published. Reviewers can make minimal recommendations, such as correcting a typographical error, accentuation, or punctuation, but there are no content recommendations. The editor in charge of the article will follow up on the revisions.
2. Accept after minimal revisions of the authors (Publishable with modifications): The article is written clearly, the methodology, results and discussion do not require changes, but some information may be requested to provide clarity. Some examples include whether an incentive was granted to participants, rewording to ensure the use of inclusive language, adding a updated references, defining a term, among others. The editor in charge of the article will follow up on the revisions.
3. Review and reevaluate: There is a significant potential to contribute to the discipline, but the paper requires organization, updating references on the topic, more clarity in the analysis, reorganizing results in the tables, among others. Once the author reviews the content of the article following the recommendations provided by the reviewers and the editor in charge of the article, it will be forwarded to the reviewers for a second-round evaluation.
4. Reject: The article has serious limitations that would require in-depth editing, particularly in the objectives of the study, the method and, therefore, in the results. The author could submit it as a new article in the future if it incorporates all the recommendations.