Review Process

Articles submitted to Forum Psychologicum undergo a dual review process: an internal review (single-blind) and an external review (double-blind). The editors select reviewers based on the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers assess the paper using a structured electronic system with pre-prepared questions and may also provide individual comments. Reviewer recommendations are presented to authors in written form, respecting confidentiality throughout the process. Reviews are expected to be conducted objectively, in line with ethical obligations outlined in the Ethics of Publication section. The list of reviewers is published on the journal’s website under the Reviewers section. The review process includes the following stages:

1. Once authors submit a manuscript to the Open Journal Systems, it undergoes an initial review by the Editorial Board. This review checks for thematic relevance, adherence to content and formatting guidelines, and the use of clear and accurate English, as specified in the Guidelines for Authors. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are returned to the authors with comments for revision. If the manuscript meets these initial criteria, it proceeds to the next stage of the review process.
2. The manuscript review process consists of two steps: an internal review and an external review.
1. Internal (Preliminary) Review
   Once an article is submitted, it undergoes an internal review by at least one member of the Editorial Team following a single-blind review procedure. This initial review aims to determine whether the article should proceed in the editorial process or be rejected at the preliminary stage. If there are uncertainties, a second editor member will review the article. Upon a positive decision, the article is sent for external review. The internal review process upholds professional peer review standards.
2. External Review (Primary)
   Once an article passes the internal review, it is sent for external review by two reviewers selected by the editors. This process follows a double-blind review procedure, where both the reviewers’ and authors’ identities are anonymized. The external review process also adheres to professional peer review standards. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on: a) scientific merit, originality, and relevance, b) clarity and precision of objectives, c) consistency of methodology and argumentation, d) clarity and accuracy of conclusions, e) adequacy of cited works, and f) language and style. Reviewers submit their assessments to the Editor in both written (review form) and electronic formats, clearly recommending acceptance or rejection. If reviewers provide conflicting opinions, the Editor may seek a third review, whose decision is final.
3. The Editor sends the manuscript, along with reviewers’ suggested revisions, to the author(s). After making the necessary corrections, the author(s) return the manuscript to the Editor within 10 days. The Editor then forwards the revised manuscript to the reviewers. This process repeats until the reviewers deem the manuscript acceptable. Reviewers may also recommend rejecting the manuscript due to scientific concerns or if they detect plagiarism or excessive compilation. The Editorial Board reviews the final version of the article. The manuscript, along with internal and external reviews, is then forwarded to the Issue Editor or the Editorial Team, who make an initial decision to accept or reject it. At the next Editorial Board meeting, the Board finalizes the decision on manuscript publication. In ambiguous cases, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.