Review policies
Editorial Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to Pharmacotherapy in Psychiatry and Neurology undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office and/or an Editor. At this stage, submissions are evaluated for compliance with the journal's scope, article-type requirements, reporting and ethical standards, scientific relevance, originality, and overall suitability for further consideration.
Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal, do not meet basic methodological or ethical standards, have substantial deficiencies that preclude meaningful peer review, or are unlikely to be of sufficient relevance or priority for the journal may be rejected without external peer review.
The Editors may also return a manuscript to the authors before peer review if technical, reporting, language, or formatting issues require correction.
Peer Review
Pharmacotherapy in Psychiatry and Neurology uses a double-anonymized peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Authors must therefore submit an anonymized manuscript from which author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other directly identifying information have been removed.
Authors should also avoid unnecessarily identifying themselves through references to their previous work, file names, document metadata, figures, tables, or supplementary material.
Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research areas or when manuscripts have previously been made publicly available as preprints.
External Review
Manuscripts selected for external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area and/or methodology of the study.
Reviewers are selected by the Editors on the basis of their expertise and ability to provide an independent and scientifically rigorous assessment. The Editors may seek additional reviews when specialist methodological, statistical, clinical, or other expertise is required.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals whom they prefer not to review their manuscript. Such requests may be taken into consideration but are not binding on the Editors. The selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the journal.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts with regard to their:
- scientific and clinical relevance;
- originality and contribution to the field;
- appropriateness and rigor of the study design and methodology;
- quality and transparency of statistical analysis;
- validity of the results and conclusions;
- adherence to applicable reporting and ethical standards;
- clarity and completeness of presentation; and
- relevance to the scope and readership of Pharmacotherapy in Psychiatry and Neurology.
Editorial decisions are based on the overall scientific merit and integrity of the manuscript and are not determined solely by the recommendations of individual reviewers.
Editorial Decisions
Following editorial and, where applicable, external peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accept without changes
- Accept after suggested changes
- Rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review
- Reject
The Editor is responsible for the final editorial decision and may reach a decision that differs from the recommendations of individual reviewers. Where reviewer assessments substantially differ, the Editor may seek an additional independent review or make a decision based on their own assessment of the manuscript and the available reviews.
A request for revision does not constitute a commitment to accept the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by new reviewers, or evaluated directly by the Editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Revised Manuscripts
When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments raised by the Editor and reviewers. Each comment should be addressed individually, and changes made to the manuscript should be clearly identified.
Where authors disagree with a reviewer or Editor comment, they should provide a clear, evidence-based explanation rather than simply omit the requested change.
Any change in authorship, author order, corresponding author, or author contributions introduced at the revision stage must be explicitly disclosed and justified in accordance with the journal's Changes to Authorship policy. Authorship changes must not be introduced solely by modifying the revised manuscript or the information entered in the submission system.
The Editors may reject a revised manuscript if the authors have not adequately addressed major scientific, methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns.
Review of Letters to the Editor and Editorials
Letters to the Editor are subject to editorial assessment. Letters reporting original research, case reports or case series, or raising substantive scientific or methodological issues may be sent for external peer review at the discretion of the Editor.
Letters commenting on previously published articles may be shared with the authors of the original article, who may be invited to submit a response. Publication of a Letter to the Editor or response remains subject to editorial approval.
Editorials are generally commissioned by the Editors and are not routinely subject to external peer review. The Editor-in-Chief may request independent review when appropriate.
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
All submitted manuscripts and information obtained during the peer-review process must be treated as confidential.
Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or other interests that could reasonably affect their impartiality and should decline an invitation when they cannot provide an independent assessment.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review or use unpublished information obtained through peer review for their own research or personal or professional advantage.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
Peer review requires independent human scientific judgment. Reviewers and Editors remain fully responsible for their assessments and editorial decisions.
Manuscripts, supplementary files, or other confidential submission materials must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI tools or other AI systems that do not provide adequate confidentiality and data protection.
Any permitted use of AI-assisted technologies in the peer-review process must preserve manuscript confidentiality, intellectual property, and data privacy and must not replace the reviewer's or Editor's own critical evaluation and judgment.
Editorial Independence and Editor Conflicts of Interest
Manuscripts submitted by Editors, members of the Editorial Board, or individuals with a close professional or personal relationship with an Editor will be handled using procedures designed to ensure editorial independence and impartiality.
An Editor who has a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript must not participate in its assessment, reviewer selection, or editorial decision. Responsibility for the manuscript will be assigned to another qualified Editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief will be handled entirely independently by another designated Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief will have no access to or involvement in the peer-review process or editorial decision beyond that available to any other author.
Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantive scientific, methodological, or procedural error may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Appeals, Complaints & Post-Publication Updates policy.