Peer review process

The Mental Health Global Challenges Journal follows the recommendations and core practices of:

which provides a comprehensive guide to the ethics of peer review. 

  1. The Editorial Board will immediately screen all manuscripts submitted for publication in Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal. Those manuscripts which fail to reach the minimal technical requirements, aims and scope, scientific standards of the journal will not be send out for further review
  2. If submitted manuscripts meet the Journal’s technical and scientific requirements the Editorial Board will assign reviewers for these manuscripts
  3. The Reviewer's responsibilities are described in Roles and Responsibilities. The MHGCJ Manuscript Evaluation Form is available to download for reviewers here
  4. All members of the Editorial Board and Reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests they may have in reviewing a manuscript.
  5. The Mental Health Global Challenges Journal follows a double-blinded process of peer review. The manuscript is reviewed anonymously by two specialists in the field of mental health. The names of reviewers will not be made available to authors; and names of authors will not be made available to reviewers. 
  6. Manuscripts will be reviewed with due respect for authors’ and reviewers’ confidentiality. Our Editors and Reviewers have been instructed to not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Reviewers and Editors may not make copies of the manuscript for their files and will not share it with others, except with the author’s written permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. 
  7. Once reviewer reports have been received, authors are given 3-4 weeks to revise the paper. 
  8. If on receiving the editorial decision concerning their manuscript authors are not satisfied they are invited to appeal to the Editorial Office. In cases in which this is considered appropriate a second opinion on the manuscript will be requested.
  9. The revised paper and approved by reviewers, will be considered for publication. Editorial Board Council and Editor-in-Chief are responsible for the final decision.