Who We Are
News & Stories
Feb 3, 2023
November 11, 2022
November 17, 2022
November 19, 2022
University Wide Events
No Communication Compromises
Areas of Study
Changing the world
Community & Innovation
Research Experiences & Services
Your Journey Starts Here
Tools & Resources
Explore Our Campus
Dec 9, 2022
Gallaudet University Psi Ch...
Chronicles of Psychology
Material under review is a privileged communication that should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the designated review process unless necessary and approved by the editors-in-chief.
Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not use the knowledge of manuscript content for any purpose unrelated to the peer-review process.
Although it is expected that the editor and/or reviewers will have access to the submitted material, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential. The review process is conducted anonymously for all submissions.
Besides providing authors with constructive criticism of submitted work, reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, present negative aspects constructively, and clearly indicate the improvements needed.
The purpose of peer review is not to demonstrate the reviewer’s proficiency in identifying flaws. Reviewers should identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help authors resolve weaknesses in the work.
Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of authors and avoid personal remarks in the review. Although reviews are confidential, all comments should be courteous and capable of withstanding public scrutiny.
Reviewers should explain and support their judgment so that editors and authors may understand the basis of the comments.
Reviewers who realize significant limitations in that their expertise in the subject of the article have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Although reviewers need not be experts in every aspect of the content, the assignment should be accepted only if one has adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment.
Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on its relevance to the Gallaudet Chronicles of Psychology.
A reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantage of material made available through the privileged communication of peer review and should make every effort to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of information obtained through the review process.
To the extent possible, the peer-review process should minimize actual or perceived bias on the reviewer’s part. Potential reviewers who have any interest that might interfere with an objective review should either decline the request to review a paper or disclose the potential conflict of interest to the Editors-in-Chief.
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review and submitting it promptly. Every effort should be made to complete the review within the requested time frame.
These guidelines are adapted from the Council of Scientific Editors’ White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (Reviewer Role and Responsibilities section updated June 2020).
Gallaudet University, chartered in 1864, is a private university for deaf and hard of hearing students.
Copyright © 2023 Gallaudet University. All rights reserved.
800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002