All manuscripts submitted to the journal “Disaster and Crisis Psychology Problems” undergo mandatory peer review to ensure compliance with scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.
The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, in which:
- reviewers are not aware of the authors’ identities;
- authors are not aware of the reviewers’ identities.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure the scientific quality of publications, provide an objective evaluation of manuscripts, and determine their suitability for publication.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected from members of the editorial board and external experts who hold relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the subject area.
- reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
- reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest;
- in the presence of a conflict of interest, reviewers must decline the review.
Initial Editorial Screening
All submissions undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.
- manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope or formatting requirements may be rejected without external review;
- all manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using appropriate software;
- editorial decisions are made independently and without bias.
The acceptable level of text similarity must not exceed 35%.
Peer Review Procedure
Manuscripts are anonymized and sent to at least two independent reviewers.
Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and a standard review form. The evaluation is based on the following criteria:
- relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope;
- originality and scientific novelty;
- validity of methods and conclusions;
- clarity and quality of presentation;
- compliance with ethical and academic standards.
Review Outcomes
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
- accept for publication;
- accept with minor revisions;
- major revisions required;
- reject.
- reviewers provide reasoned and constructive feedback;
- revised manuscripts may be subject to additional rounds of review;
- revision does not guarantee acceptance;
- review reports are archived by the editorial office for at least three years.
Review Timeline
- typical review period: 2–4 weeks;
- average time to first decision: 4–8 weeks.
Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ reports and editorial evaluation.
- in cases of potential conflict of interest, the manuscript is handled by another editor;
- final decisions are made independently and objectively.
Additional Provisions
- accepted manuscripts undergo editorial and technical editing;
- minor stylistic changes may be introduced without author approval;
- authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their work.
