Scope assessment
Read the manuscript against the journal’s remit first. A manuscript outside the subject is better returned early with a clear explanation than carried through review.
Open Access Pub · Editors Guidelines
Editors Guidelines
What the journal asks of an editor handling a manuscript about children or adolescents, and what the journal undertakes in return.
- Journal
- Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
- Review model
- Single-blind; double-blind on request
- Decisions
- Independent of fees and roles
The role
What an editor is responsible for
An editor decides whether a manuscript belongs in the journal, arranges its review by people able to judge it, and reaches a decision that the authors can understand and, if they disagree, appeal.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Editorial decisions are independent of fees, services, membership, and editorial or reviewer roles.
Handling
Handling a manuscript
Conflicts of interest
Declare any personal, professional or financial relationship that bears on a submission, and recuse yourself from the decision. The same applies when selecting reviewers.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Its content is not shared or used outside the review it was sent for, and reviewer identities are protected.
Blinding
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Ethics
Refer to the editorial office any manuscript where consent or assent documentation is missing or inadequate, where ethics approval is absent, or where research integrity is in question.
Deciding
Reaching and communicating a decision
- Weigh every reviewer recommendation, and say which points carried the decision
- Give the reasons for the decision in terms the authors can act on
- Offer constructive guidance even where the manuscript is declined
- Set out specifically what a revision must address
- Refer an uncertain or contested case to the Editor-in-Chief
Judge a manuscript on the work, not on the identity, affiliation or nationality of its authors, and not on where else they have published.
Eligibility and evidence are separate questions. A study is in scope because of its subject; the strength of its claims is assessed against the design that supports them.
Use of AI
Confidentiality and AI tools
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
The same requirement applies to editors: confidential manuscript content is not uploaded to a tool where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Where to go next
Read further
- Editorial PoliciesThe policies an editorial decision rests on.
- Reviewer GuidelinesWhat the journal asks of a reviewer.
- Editorial BoardThe editors responsible for the journal.