Scientific validity
Whether the design answers the question asked, whether the analysis suits the data, and whether the conclusions follow from the results presented.
Open Access Pub · Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Practical guidance for reviewing research about children and adolescents: what to assess, what to hold the claims to, and what to do with the files afterwards.
- Journal
- Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
- Review model
- Single-blind; double-blind on request
- Reviewers
- Normally at least two
The review
What a review is for
A review tells the editor whether the work supports what it claims, and tells the authors how to make it stronger. Both parts matter; a review that only reaches a verdict is of limited use to either.
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.
Assessment
What to assess
Claim and evidence
Whether each claim is matched to the evidence behind it. A cross-sectional association does not carry a causal claim, and a single-site study does not carry a general one; say which claims need to be narrowed rather than rejecting the work for making them.
Developmental appropriateness
Whether the ages and developmental stages of the sample fit the question, whether the instruments are validated for those ages, and whether the findings are interpreted against development rather than apart from it.
Ethics
Whether ethics approval, parental or guardian consent, and age-appropriate assent are documented, and whether identifiable information about a minor is adequately protected. Raise any concern with the handling editor.
Reporting
Whether the methods are reported fully enough for the study to be assessed and repeated, and whether limitations are stated.
Scope and standards
What not to require
A manuscript is in scope because of its subject. Whether it is convincing is a separate judgment, made against the design the authors chose.
Theoretical, methodological, qualitative, policy and review work each answer to the standards of their own kind. Asking a measurement study for clinical utility, or a qualitative study for statistical power, assesses it against a question it did not ask.
Novelty is not a condition of publication. A careful replication, a well-reported negative result and a rigorous descriptive study each add to the record.
Conduct
Confidentiality, conflicts and files
Decline a review where a personal, professional or financial relationship could bias your assessment, and disclose any potential conflict to the handling editor.
A manuscript under review is confidential and its content is not used before publication.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
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.