Instructions for the Reviewing of Manuscripts

Thank you for your collaboration on our manuscripts. We hope these guidelines are helpful to simplify your complex task.

Please remember, reviews should be completed within 30 days of receipt of the manuscript, allowing for a rapid turn-around time respectful of our authors.

Note that the manuscript you receive to review is strictly confidential: if you wish to share the document with a colleague of yours for reviewing collaboration, please ask the editorial management for permission.

Our procedure implies double blind reviewing. After an initial screening by the editorial management, the manuscript in anonymous format is sent to two or three masked reviewers, experts in the required field, who will make a recommendation to the editorial board (acceptance, rejection or author’s revision); in case of rejection or author’s revision, an educative written critique for the author will be provided.

In making your review (1-2 single space pages), please consider these guidelines:

  1. The manuscript must be original (not previously published in another published work);
  2. It must be a new and important contribution for the psychotherapy practice or theory;
  3. It must reference works that may have contributed to the birth of the new ideas;
  4. It must be written in a concise form (see instructions for authors for details).

The review may begin by summarizing the key points of new ideas of the manuscript.

Following this, you should point out the significance of the work and its relevance to psychotherapy theory or practice.

You may also assess the methodology chosen and the interpretation of the findings.

A comment on the clarity and coherence of the written presentation is requested as well.

Consider, please, the appropriateness of the title, of the abstract, and point out what is repetitive.

Report in your review if a justification is provided for the choice of the methodology.

As for experimental studies, please pay attention to the extent to which the author(s) provided adequate detail in the report of their procedure in order to let future investigators replicate the work. Attention should be paid to the adoption of appropriate cautions for correction for Type 1 error.

For studies conducted using qualitative methodology, the methodology needs to be described in detail as well.

Whatever methodology is chosen, attention should be paid to the ethical issues, including cautions taken to reduce potential risks to participants.

Regardless of the type of study, qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods, the results should be presented in a reader-friendly and concise style.

All key study limitations should be clarified.

References should be accurate and appropriate.

Finally, if you think for any reason that it may be challenging for you to give a balanced or fair judgment, please  inform the Editorial Management  so that the manuscript can be promptly reassigned.

Comments: 0

Comments are closed.

  • Editorial Board


    Matteo Selvini, Scuola di Psicoterapia della famiglia Mara Selvini Palazzoli, Milano

    Scientific Editors

    Grazia Attili, Sapienza Università, Roma

    Alfredo Canevaro, American Family Therapy Academy, Buenos Aires

    Juan Luis Linares, Università Autònoma, Barcellona

    Marco Vannotti, Cerfasy (Centre de Recherches Familiales et Systémiques), Neuchâtel