Peer Review

Behavioral and Social Studies in Mental Health uses a double-blind anonymous peer-review system. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the identities of the manuscript's authors, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. This procedure is intended to reduce the potential influence of personal, institutional, professional, geographic, or other forms of bias during scientific evaluation.

Following submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment. At this stage, the editorial office or editors may examine the manuscript's compliance with journal requirements, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, academic quality, basic methodological adequacy, ethical considerations, originality, presentation, and compliance with submission guidelines. Similarity screening using iThenticate may also form part of the preliminary assessment.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, do not meet fundamental scientific or ethical standards, or are unsuitable for external peer review may be declined during the initial editorial evaluation.

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary assessment are normally sent to two or three independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area and methodology. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and academically justified assessments.

Peer reviewers may evaluate matters such as the importance and originality of the research question, adequacy of the literature review and theoretical framework, appropriateness of the research methodology, sampling procedures, measurement instruments, statistical or qualitative analyses, presentation and interpretation of findings, relationship between conclusions and evidence, ethical aspects of the research, quality of academic writing, and the manuscript's overall contribution to mental health scholarship.

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, a manuscript may receive an editorial decision such as acceptance, revision, or rejection. Where revision is requested, authors are expected to address reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and to provide an appropriate response explaining the changes made or academically justifying points on which suggested changes have not been adopted.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the responsible editor, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the outstanding issues. Additional rounds of revision may be requested where necessary.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal's editorial authority, which considers the reviewers' reports alongside the manuscript's scientific quality, ethical compliance, relevance, and overall suitability for publication.

Peer-review materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers should not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage. Authors are likewise expected to engage respectfully and professionally with reviewer comments.

Where a reviewer has a conflict of interest that could affect objective assessment of a manuscript, the reviewer should disclose the conflict and decline the review when appropriate. The journal seeks to select reviewers on the basis of relevant scholarly expertise and independence from the submitted work.