Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Research in Psychoanalysis – The first English/French Bilingual Psychoanalytic Journal

Peer-review Policy

Evaluation of conformity to Author Guidelines
Upon reception, the article is first read by the editorial committee in order to confirm that it respects the different criteria laid out in the Author Guidelines:
– is the article a good fit for the journal in terms of its research focus, and does it reflect the journal’s identity and editorial policy?
– does the article respect the journal’s editorial norms (length, recent bibliographic references)?
– has the article been thoroughly anonymized?
Any article that does not meet these criteria cannot be considered for peer review and must be resubmitted after modifications.

Double-blind peer review
Articles that are found to be in conformity with the Author Guidelines are submitted to a double-blind peer review. Each article is evaluated by two reviewers, selected for their expertise in the article’s areas of research.
The reviewers are required to signal any possible conflict of interest and any element that would reveal the author’s identity to them. In the event of a conflict of interest or the identification of the author by a reviewer, the latter is removed from the peer review process and the article is given to a new reviewer. Any author who attempts to circumvent the principle of anonymous evaluation, or who attempts to contact a potential reviewer directly, will have her/his article removed from the editorial process. The editorial committee pledges to respect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, and to protect the article’s contents from any unauthorized circulation or use: only the editorial committee and the two reviewers have access to the article, and in no circumstance may they cite it or publish its contents.
Reviewers evaluate the article using a form (available on the journal’s website) that guides them through the procedure step by step. They are asked to pay particular attention to the following elements: the clarity and presentation of the article, the article’s scholarly quality, and the relevance and originality of the research.
With the exception of optional written comments made confidentially to the editorial committee, the entirety of the reviewer’s evaluation is transmitted to the author upon her/his being informed of the final decision concerning the submitted article. The reader’s identity is also anonymized. By having access to the evaluation form, the author receives detailed information concerning the elements of the evaluation procedure, which may prove useful in the event of a recommendation to resubmit with modifications.

Recommendation and editorial decision
The editorial committee makes its decision based on the two reviewers’ recommendations. Five recommendations are possible:

1) Accept without modifications
A very rare recommendation, for an article of great scholarly merit and an exceptional written style.

2) Accept with minor modifications
For an article whose clarity, quality, and relevance satisfy the journal’s criteria, but that requires several minor additions, clarifications, or reformulations. The requested modifications are signaled in the reviewers’ evaluations. The author is asked to modify several precise points, not to restructure the article as a whole.

3) Suggestion to resubmit after modifications
For an article whose object is scholarly relevant, but that is not readable or rigorous enough to merit publication in its current state. The reviewer indicates the points to be reworked should the author wish to resubmit. The author may be asked to restructure the article; to rework the article’s thesis or to reengage with the research field in question; or to rewrite the article in order to improve its precision and clarity. If the author chooses to make these modifications, the article will be submitted to a new double-blind peer review; a resubmit does not, however, guarantee acceptance.

4) Suggestion to submit to another journal
For an article that does not meet Research in Psychoanalysis’ publication criteria, but whose scholarly qualities, methodology, or focus could be of interest to a different journal. (Reviewers can make suggestions to this end.)

5) Refusal
For an article that is not considered relevant or scholarly rigorous enough to merit publication.

The editorial committee will inform the author of its final decision regarding the submitted article, and will provide her/him with the two anonymous reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The editorial committee is at the author’s disposal for any question regarding its decision, any necessary modifications to be made the article, or the next steps towards publication in the event of the article’s acceptance.