Horizon Journal of Psychology is committed to fair, rigorous and constructive peer review. This policy describes how manuscripts are evaluated and the responsibilities of everyone involved.
Model of review
HJP operates double-anonymous peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another. Authors must prepare an anonymised manuscript as described in the Author Guidelines.
The review process
- Editorial screening. The editorial office checks each submission for scope, completeness and adherence to policy. Manuscripts outside scope or not meeting basic requirements may be returned or declined without external review.
- Assignment. A handling editor with relevant expertise is assigned to manage the manuscript.
- Independent review. The manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers who assess originality, theoretical grounding, methodological rigour, analysis, interpretation, ethics and contribution.
- Decision. On the basis of the reviews, the handling editor recommends a decision — accept, minor revision, major revision, or decline. Final decisions rest with the editor and are communicated with the reviewers' comments.
- Revision. Authors respond to feedback point by point; revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers.
Criteria
Reviewers and editors evaluate the significance of the contribution, the soundness and transparency of the methods, the appropriateness of the analysis and interpretation, ethical conduct, clarity, and fit with the journal's scope. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, not on the geographical origin, institutional affiliation or perceived prestige of the authors.
Reviewer responsibilities
- Treat manuscripts as confidential and do not share, distribute or use them for any purpose, including uploading them to third-party or AI tools (see the AI and Generative AI Policy).
- Declare any conflict of interest and decline to review where impartiality cannot be assured.
- Provide timely, evidence-based, constructive and respectful feedback.
Timelines, appeals and integrity
The journal aims to reach an initial decision promptly and keeps authors informed of progress. Authors may appeal a decision by contacting the editorial office with a clear, reasoned response; appeals are considered by an editor not previously involved where possible. Concerns about the integrity of the process or the work are handled under the journal's Publication Ethics policy, consistent with COPE guidance.