Peer review remains the cornerstone of academic publishing and plays a critical role in maintaining the quality, rigor, and integrity of scholarly work. At JPRP, we deeply value the time, expertise, and scholarly contribution of our reviewers, whose evaluations are fundamental to the advancement of psychological research. The journal adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE: https://publicationethics.org/) to ensure that the review process is fair, impartial, and timely. JPRP conducts a formal review process that incorporates a structured evaluation format, encouraging reviewers to provide feedback that is constructive, evidence-based, and developmental in nature. 

Expectations of Reviewers

Upon receiving a manuscript for review, the reviewer should assess the following:

1. Expertise Alignment: The manuscript’s subject should align with the reviewer’s academic specialization. If the topic does not fall within their scope, they are encouraged to promptly inform the editorial office and suggest alternate reviewers where possible.
2. Timeliness: Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluation within two weeks. Should this timeframe be impractical, timely communication with the editor is appreciated to arrange a new deadline or identify a replacement.
3. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. While having reviewed the same manuscript for another journal does not constitute a disqualification, transparency is vital.
4. Confidentiality: Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript. Under no circumstances should its content be shared or used for personal advantage. The peer review process at JPRP is conducted either as single-blind or double-blind, and reviewers are advised to ensure their identities remain undisclosed in both their comments and document metadata.

Manuscript Evaluation Process

The review process begins with a preliminary overview of the manuscript to develop a general impression of its objectives, methodology, results, and implications. Major flaws should be noted at this stage, including but not limited to inadequate sample size, inconsistent or contradictory data, inappropriate use of instruments or analyses, or unsubstantiated conclusions. If the manuscript demonstrates potential for meaningful contribution to the discipline, a more detailed section-by-section analysis follows.

In evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should consider the following critical domains:

• Originality and Contribution: Determine whether the research question is novel, and whether the findings offer significant advancement in psychological science.
• Scientific Rigor: Assess whether the study design is appropriate and robust, the methodology is clearly defined and replicable, and the results are interpreted with analytical soundness.
• Ethical Standards: Confirm that the study adheres to ethical research principles, including informed consent and protection of human participants, and that there is no evidence of data fabrication, plagiarism, or other forms of misconduct.
• Presentation Quality: Evaluate the coherence and clarity of the manuscript’s language, the accuracy of data presentation, and whether the structure adheres to scholarly standards.
• Relevance and Impact: Judge the manuscript’s relevance to the aims and scope of JPRP and its potential interest to readers in the psychological community.

Scholars willing to contribute to the journal as reviewers are requested to register with their complete institutional affiliation, brief curriculum vitae, and a list of 5–6 research keywords relevant to their area of expertise. Once approved by the Managing Editor, they will be contacted with manuscript review invitations.