Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Development and Psychopathology
  4. Journal information
  5. Peer review information
  6. Review process
Journal Home
Review process

This journal uses a double-anonymous model of peer review. Neither author nor reviewers know the identity of each other. 

Info

Allow content?

This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.

Resources

Cambridge provides a variety of introductory resources for peer reviewers on Cambridge Core.

Ethics

Cambridge also provides guidance on ethical peer review practices.

Manuscript Review Process

The review process for most manuscripts involves two phases. First, the submission will be evaluated by one of the editors to ascertain whether the manuscript will be sent out for review. The manuscript will be sent out for further review if the submission is judged to constitute a potentially important contribution and consistent with the scope of Development and Psychopathology. This means that if an editor decides that the manuscript does not make a contribution and is unlikely to be accepted, the manuscript will be “desk rejected” and returned to the author(s) without further review or consideration. Should the submitting author disagree with this decision, there is an appeals process (see below). Second, assuming that the manuscript passes the first “desk reject” phase, the manuscript will then be sent out for external review. The primary focus of the review process and criterion for publication are whether the submission involves a substantive contribution that advances knowledge in developmental psychopathology, broadly conceived. With this two-phase process, it is our intent to accelerate the timeline for completing editorial review while maintaining robust, high-quality peer review.

Manuscripts will have an anonymised review, generally by two or more scholars. Every effort will be made to notify authors within 60 days of submission concerning the reviewers’ recommendations and comments. Development and Psychopathology has no page charges.

Appealing Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal a manuscript decision by emailing both the Action Editor who handled the manuscript and the two Co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal, cc’ing the Editorial Office. The email message must clearly state the case for why the decision should be changed. Appeals will only be considered if the authors: (a) identify factual errors made by the reviewers or Action Editor that had a major impact on the decision, or (b) can provide a substantiated claim of unfair treatment and/or bias in the review process. Appeals for any other reason will be denied without further consideration. Appeals that meet the identified criteria will be considered by the original Action Editor. Concerns may be escalated to the Co-Editors-in-Chief, but only after a decision on an appeal is rendered by the Action Editor.

Registered Reports

Registered Reports are a form of empirical research article that involves a two-stage submission process. At the first stage, a Registered Report Protocol will be peer reviewed prior to the authors beginning their research. At the second stage, the completed Registered Report will be reviewed after the research has been completed.

Initial Registered Report Protocol submissions will be reviewed based on the standard criteria that we also apply to regular article submissions, including the proposed study’s fit with the theme of the journal, its theoretical importance and novelty, its methodological rigor, and appropriateness of the proposed analyses. On passing review at this stage:

  • The Registered Report Protocol will be published in the journal
  • An "in-principle acceptance" will be given to the authors, by which the journal commits to publish the completed Registered Report as long as the authors follow the study design described in their Registered Report Protocol

Once the study has been completed, the completed Registered Report will be peer reviewed to assess whether the authors have followed their study design, or satisfactorily explained any deviations from the original study design.