Peer Review Process

Peer review prosess is the process of screening manuscripts that have quality and are suitable for publication. This process includes:

1. manuscripts submitted to journal first go through initial screening by the editorial team,

2. once the manuscript aligns with the journal's focus and scope, it undergoes scrutiny for potential plagiarism or duplication through a similarity check,

3. manuscripts that pass the examination will be sent to at least two reviewers for peer review,

4. reviewers independently make recommendations to journal editors, whether the manuscript should be rejected or accepted (with or without revision), and

5. the journal editor considers all feedback from peer reviewers and makes a decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

Psycho Holistic is using a double-blind system in review activities whereby reviewers and authors identities will be concealed from each other.

To ensure the integrity of anonymous peer-review, every effort should be made to prevent the identities of the authors and reviewers from being known to each other. This involves the authors, editors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) checking to see if the following steps have been taken with regard to the text and the file properties.

1. The authors of the document have deleted their names from the text, with "Author".

2. The authors of the document should also be removed personal information from the file properties.

How to Respond to Reviewers

This information is a guidance for authors on how to respond effectively to Psycho Holistic reviewers' comments during the revision process. Please kindly follow this guidance when revising your manuscript.

Steps for responding to reviewers:

1. Create a table of revisions

   For each comment from the reviewers, please create a detailed table of revisions. This table should include:

• Reviewer's comment: The original comment from the reviewer.
• Author's response: Your response to the comment, explaining the changes made or justifying why changes were not necessary.
• Location of changes: Specify the exact locations in the manuscript where the revisions were made (e.g., page number, section, paragraph).

2. Highlight changes in the manuscript

   In addition to the table of revisions, please highlight the sections in the manuscript where changes have been made. This can be done using track changes or by using a yellow highlight color to mark the revised text. This helps reviewers to quickly locate and understand the modifications made in response to their comments.

Following these steps will streamline the review process and ensure that your responses are clear and comprehensive.