Per Review Process

Peer Review Process 

Life Course Psychology (LCP) is a peer-reviewed academic journal that applies a structured and rigorous editorial process to all manuscripts submitted for publication. Every manuscript submitted to LCP is subject to an initial editorial assessment and, when considered suitable, an external peer-review process. The peer-review process involves independent experts with relevant academic and research expertise who evaluate the quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution of the submitted manuscript.

The peer-review process is implemented to maintain the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of articles published in LCP. The journal applies a double-anonymous peer review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is normally evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers.

The peer-review and publication process at LCP proceeds through the following stages:

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding author submits the manuscript to LCP through the journal's online submission system supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS).

The author is required to ensure that the manuscript complies with the journal's Author Guidelines, including manuscript structure, formatting, references, ethical requirements, author information, and other submission requirements. 

The submitting author is also responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is original, has not been simultaneously submitted to another journal, and that all authors have approved the submitted version.

2. Initial Screening and Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted manuscript is initially handled by the Managing Editor.

At this stage, the Managing Editor conducts an administrative and preliminary editorial screening to determine whether the manuscript is eligible to proceed to the editorial process.

The screening includes:

  • Checking the completeness of the submitted files and metadata.
  • Checking compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
  • Checking the manuscript structure and formatting against the Author Guidelines.
  • Checking the title, abstract, keywords, author information, and affiliations.
  • Assessing whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of LCP.
  • Conducting an initial assessment of the manuscript's academic quality and suitability.
  • Checking for obvious methodological, ethical, or structural problems.
  • Conducting a similarity/plagiarism check using an appropriate plagiarism-detection system.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or contain substantial problems at this initial stage may be returned to the authors or rejected without being sent for peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned by the Managing Editor to an appropriate Journal Editor.

3. Editorial Assessment by the Journal Editor

After the initial screening, the manuscript is handled by a Journal Editor who takes responsibility for managing the editorial and peer-review process.

The Journal Editor evaluates whether the manuscript is academically appropriate for LCP and whether it has sufficient potential to proceed to external peer review.

The assessment considers, among other aspects:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
  • Originality and potential contribution.
  • Theoretical foundation.
  • Research design and methodology.
  • Clarity of research objectives or questions.
  • Adequacy of data and analysis.
  • Quality of discussion and interpretation.
  • Overall academic quality and presentation.

If the manuscript is considered unsuitable for external review, the Journal Editor may recommend rejection at this stage. If the manuscript is considered suitable, the Journal Editor proceeds with the selection and invitation of reviewers.

4. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The Journal Editor selects and invites qualified reviewers based on their academic expertise, research interests, methodological competence, publication experience, and relevance to the subject of the manuscript.

The Journal Editor normally appoints at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript undergoing external peer review.

Reviewers are selected with consideration of:

  • Expertise relevant to the manuscript.
  • Academic and research competence.
  • Appropriate methodological expertise where necessary.
  • Independence from the authors and their institutions.
  • Potential conflicts of interest.

LCP applies a double-anonymous peer review process. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

The manuscript and relevant review materials are therefore provided to reviewers without identifying information that would compromise the anonymity of the review process.

5. Reviewer Response to Invitation

Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their expertise, research interests, potential conflicts of interest, and availability.

Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation through the OJS system.

A reviewer who identifies a potential conflict of interest or determines that the manuscript falls outside their expertise should decline the invitation and, where possible, inform the Journal Editor of the reason.

When a reviewer declines, the Journal Editor may invite another qualified reviewer to ensure that the required number of independent reviews is obtained.

6. Peer Review is Conducted

Once reviewers accept the invitation, they evaluate the manuscript objectively and constructively.

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript in relation to the academic standards of Life Course Psychology, including:

  • Originality and significance of the study.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Adequacy of the theoretical framework and literature review.
  • Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology.
  • Participant or sample characteristics and procedures.
  • Validity and reliability of instruments or measures, where applicable.
  • Appropriateness of data analysis.
  • Accuracy and clarity of the results.
  • Quality of discussion and interpretation.
  • Contribution to psychological knowledge, research, and/or practice.
  • Ethical considerations.
  • Quality and relevance of references.
  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript.

Reviewers provide comments and recommendations through OJS. Their recommendation may be:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and are considered by the Journal Editor when making the editorial decision.

7. Evaluation of Reviewer Reports and Editorial Decision

After the required reviewer reports have been received, the Journal Editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewers' comments and recommendations.

The Journal Editor considers the quality and consistency of the reviews and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Journal Editor may request clarification, seek an additional review, or conduct a further editorial assessment before making a decision.

The possible editorial decisions are:

Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication and requires no substantive revision.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before acceptance.

Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may need to undergo another round of peer review.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements and is not considered suitable for publication.

The editorial decision is made by the Journal Editor based on the overall academic assessment and the reviewer reports. Reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the final decision.

8. Decision is Communicated to the Author

The Journal Editor communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through OJS.

When revision is requested, the decision letter includes the relevant and anonymized reviewer comments and editorial instructions that the author should address.

Authors are expected to revise the manuscript carefully and respond to the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and Journal Editor.

For revised manuscripts, authors should clearly indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

If the revised manuscript does not adequately address the required revisions, the Journal Editor may request further revision or reject the manuscript.

9. Revision and Re-evaluation

When a manuscript is returned for minor or major revision, the author is given an opportunity to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments and the Journal Editor's instructions.

The revised manuscript should be submitted through OJS within the specified revision period.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript will normally be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. The reviewers assess whether their major concerns have been adequately addressed.

For minor revisions, the Journal Editor may evaluate the revised manuscript directly without another external review when the requested changes are limited and do not require further specialist assessment.

The Journal Editor may request additional revisions when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's academic and editorial standards.

Once the Journal Editor is satisfied that all substantive issues have been appropriately addressed, the manuscript may be formally accepted.

10. Copyediting

Responsible: Journal Editor

After the manuscript has been accepted, it proceeds to the copyediting stage.

The Journal Editor manages the copyediting process to ensure that the accepted manuscript conforms to the journal's editorial standards.

Copyediting includes checking and improving:

  • Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and typographical errors.
  • Academic language and readability.
  • Consistency of terminology.
  • Headings and manuscript structure.
  • Tables, figures, and captions.
  • In-text citations and reference lists.
  • DOI and bibliographic information where applicable.
  • Author names and affiliations.
  • Article metadata.
  • Overall consistency with the journal's style and formatting requirements.

The copyedited file is uploaded to the appropriate OJS stage.

11. Production

Responsible: Production Editor

Following completion of copyediting, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage.

The Production Editor is responsible for preparing the manuscript for its final publication format.

The production process includes:

  • Preparing the final article layout.
  • Formatting the article according to the journal's publication style.
  • Checking tables, figures, headings, references, and other elements.
  • Preparing the final publication file.
  • Checking the technical quality and consistency of the final article.
  • Uploading the final production file to OJS.

If substantive editorial issues are identified during production, the manuscript is returned to the Journal Editor for clarification or correction.

After production has been completed, the final manuscript is returned to the Journal Editor for the final editorial handover.

12. Final Editorial Handover and Publication Approval

Responsible: Journal Editor and Editor in Chief

After receiving the final production file, the Journal Editor conducts a final editorial check to ensure that the manuscript has successfully completed the editorial, peer-review, revision, copyediting, and production stages.

The Journal Editor then submits the completed article to the Editor in Chief for final publication approval.

The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority regarding the publication of the article.

The Editor-in-Chief may:

  • Confirm the final publication decision.
  • Approve the final version of the article.
  • Confirm the issue in which the article will appear.
  • Determine or confirm the publication schedule.
  • Authorize the article for publication through OJS.

Once final approval has been granted, the article is scheduled for publication in the appropriate issue or publication cycle.

13. Publication

Following final approval by the Editor in Chief, the article is published online through the journal's OJS platform.

The published article represents the final version of record and is made available according to the journal's publication and access policy.