All manuscripts submitted to Odisha Journal of Psychiatry are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below:
The Editor-in-Chief performs an initial evaluation of all submitted manuscripts, and if needed, opinion is also sought from one of the Associate Editors. Some manuscripts, especially those belonging to the below categories, may get rejected at this stage:
* Not sufficiently original
* Has serious scientific flaws
* Has extremely poor grammar or language
* Is outside the aims and scope of the journal
* Does not adhere to the ethical standards prescribed by the journal.
Author(s) of the manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within a two weeks of submission.
In this stage, manuscripts may also be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision or for addition of missing components like abstract, tables, mention of ethical committee approval, etc.
Those manuscripts which meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to a triage editor. Triage editor will search relevant subject area expert and will send manuscript to at least two experts for peer review.
Type of peer review
Odisha Journal of Psychiatry employs ‘double blind’ reviewing, in which the reviewers remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the peer review process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.
How the reviewers are selected
Triage editor will make sure that reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their expertise. References given by authors will be given importance for review if experts match subject expertise standards.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
* Is original as to thought and method (including data)
* Is methodologically sound
* Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
* Correctly and exhaustively references relevant existing literature
* Follows appropriate ethical guidelines, including those related to plagiarism
* Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field
Before they proceed to review a manuscript, the reviewers are requested to reveal if they have any conflict of interest in relation to that particular manuscript. If any conflict of interest is revealed, the Editor-in-Chief will weigh the magnitude of the conflict and assign the manuscript to the same or another reviewer.
The reviewers are instructed to delete the digital or print copies of the manuscripts once the review process is over.
Correction of errors in language is not an essential part of the peer review process, but the reviewers are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style. The reviewers advise the Editor-in-Chief to accept or reject the article or to request the author(s) to revise the manuscript in a minor or substantive way.
The typical time for the first round of the review process is approximately 3-4 weeks, with a maximum of eight weeks. Should the reviewers’ reports contradict each other or a report is unnecessarily delayed, opinion from another expert or a member of the editorial team may be sought. This decision will be taken by triage editor with consultation from editor in chief.
Reviewers report along with triage editors recommendation will be submitted to Editor in chief for consideration and further action.
In the rare cases when it is difficult to find a second reviewer to assess the manuscript, and the one reviewer’s extant report has thoroughly convinced the Triage editor and Editor-in-Chief, a decision to accept, reject, or ask the author(s) for a revision may be made based on the single review available along with triage editors recommendation.
The decision of the Editor-in-Chief will be conveyed to the corresponding author with the reviewers’ recommendations, usually including the latter’s verbatim comments. If major revisions are needed, the author may be informed that a decision on acceptance or rejection will be taken only after an assessment of the new draft.
What happens next?
Revised manuscripts may again be sent to one of or both the initial reviewers for rereview, and there may be further requests for revision.
In the next stage, if required, an Associate Editor may perform an Editorial Rereview and suggest further revisions. The Associate Editor may also assess subsequent revised drafts if any. If a decision about acceptance or rejection is not already taken, the Associate Editor may give the Editor-in-Chief a recommendation in this regard too.
The Editor-in-Chief will take the final decision about acceptance or rejection and convey the same to the corresponding author. For accepted articles, the Editor-in-Chief may also check the manuscript for matters of linguistic and stylistic correctness and may suggest or apply corrections.
Overall, for most manuscripts selected for peer review, a decision is made within two weeks to four months.