Submission, peer review, and predatory journals

Choosing a journal

1. 1Read three recent issues. If your paper would look out of place, it is the wrong journal, whatever the aims and scope say.
2. 2Check the audience: a process finding belongs in Psychotherapy Research; a trial belongs somewhere clinicians read.
3. 3Check the reporting guideline the journal requires and follow it before submission, not after review.
4. 4Check open access terms and article processing charges before you submit, not after acceptance.

Spotting a predatory journal

• Solicitation by flattering email, often mis-spelling your field or your name
• Promised review turnaround measured in days
• Editorial board that cannot be verified, or lists people who did not agree to be on it
• Fees disclosed only after acceptance
• Scope so broad it covers unrelated disciplines
• Not indexed in the databases that matter for your field; not listed in DOAJ
• A title very close to that of an established journal

Responding to peer review

1. 1Wait a day before writing the response. The first draft of a reply to Reviewer 2 should never be sent.
2. 2Respond to every point, in order, in a table or numbered list, quoting the comment.
3. 3Say what you changed and where — page and line — or say why you did not, with a reason rather than a defence.
4. 4You may disagree. Do so politely and with evidence; editors do not expect capitulation on every point.
5. 5Where a reviewer has misunderstood, that is usually information: the text was unclear. Fix the text rather than explaining in the letter alone.

Preprints

PsyArXiv and medRxiv let you post before or during review, which establishes priority, allows citation, and makes the work available while the process grinds on. Most psychology journals permit it; check the journal’s policy, and update the preprint when the paper is accepted.