Suggestions for reviewers
The review should ideally cover the following questions:
Does the manuscript cover one of the fields relevant to Clinical Psychology? Does the content match the title? Please suggest a running head (which is printed on each page of the article), upto 40 characters.
Does the manuscript contain interesting experimental, clinical or theoretical results or field observations to warrant its publication in Clinical Psychology?
- Are the authors thoughts clear and the conclusions logical?
- Are the experimental methods described clearly enough to be reproduced?
- Are there mistakes in the formulae, presentation and statistical analysis of the results? If so, which?
- Does the manuscript contain material which is not new or relevant and could be excluded? If so, which? Should some sections be abridged. If so, which?
- Is the presentation chronology good or is there room for improvement. If so, how?
- Are the references correct? Please check all available references.
- Should the language (style) be improved. Is the terminology concordant with the norms? Are there any unnecessary archaic expressions which could be substituted by current terms? Are the abbreviations understandable? Please mark all suggestions in the margins.
- Are the figures and tables satisfactory? Are their texts complete and correct? Are the coordinate markings correct? Are some figures or tables superfluous?
Instructions to reviewers:
Please send your review in the form provided to firstname.lastname@example.org