Psychiatry & Clinical Psychopharmacology formerly Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni-Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology

Editorial Manager ® for Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology


Reviewer Guide



Click for downloading Manuscript Review Form


Peer Review System

This guide for reviewers contains information about basic considerations that should be applied when reviewing a manuscript that has been submitted to BCP, and about the editorial policies and standards of the journal.
The Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology (BCP) uses a double-blind peer review system, where both the identities of reviewers and authors are anonymous. Manuscripts are submitted via online submission system of the journal Submitted manuscripts should not be published before or under evaluation by other journals and it should be approved by each of the contributing authors. Consideration for publication is initially assessed by the editor-in-chief, the editorial staff, and the appropriate subspecialty editors. Publication of research articles is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors. Submitted manuscripts are sent to appropriate peer reviewers and they are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication and the authors improve their manuscript. The requested changes are made by the authors using the online system. The editorial board again reviews the manuscript and printed proofs are sent to the author for final corrections. The articles are published online followed by the print copies. The BCP does not request any fees from the authors for publishing the approved manuscripts.

The editor of the journal is the person responsible for its entire content. The editor does not share information about manuscripts (submission, contents, reviewing process, reviewers' suggestions or publishing decisions) with anyone other than the authors or reviewers.

Review Invitation

Editor sends out review invitations to potential reviewers by e-mail through the online submission system. The invitations are either accepted or declined within five business days of receiving the review invitation. The reviewer reports are expected to be completed within 2 weeks following the acceptance. It is highly appreciated if the reviewers inform the editor in case of a delay in review process and/or if they need some more time for review.

Accepting and Declining the Review Invitation

Accepting a review invitation means that the reviewer will do the review within the mentioned time frame. The reviewer can access the manuscript through the online system. In case of any access problems, reviewers can contact the relevant editor.

If the reviewer declines the invitation to review, he/she should inform the editor about the reason of declining. It is highly appreciated if the reviewer can recommend another colleague for the declined review.

Conflict of Interest

The reviewers should notify the editor of any kinds of conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interests can be financial, academic, personal, and company or institutional affiliations. In case of a conflict of interest the disclosure should be made at the time of acceptance of a review assignment. Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology accepts WAME's definition of conflict of interest that can be accessed at


The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts review process is confidential and a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with the third persons. The reviewers are not allowed to have copies of the manuscripts for personal use and they cannot distribute manuscripts to others. Unless the authors and editor permit, the reviews of referees cannot be published or disclosed anywhere. The anonymity of the reviewers is important. In rare situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

The Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology recommends reviewers to follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for peer reviewers.

Conducting the Review

Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.

- Does the manuscript match with the scope of the journal?

- Does the manuscript adhere to the ethical guidelines?

- Are the research objectives clearly defined and have they been fullfilled?

- Is the methodology and design of the study appropriate and well-described?

- Is the data analysis made appropriately?

- Are the data analysis and results valid and reliable?

- Are the discussion and conclusion well balanced and supported by the findings?

- To what extend do the findings represent an originality and significance?

- Is the manuscript well written, presented and supported with necessary materials, figures, and tables?

- Is the manuscript compatible with the journal’s editorial policies and information for authors?

- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript?

Standard of Review Reporting

The reviewer reports should have three parts: comments for the editor, comments for the author, and review information form. In the comments for the editor section, confidential comments to the editor are provided together with the reasons for recommendations regarding acceptance, rejection or revisions. When writing the comments for the authors, the reviewer should make sure that his name is anonymous. Comments for the authors should be stated thoughtfully and should not include any personal expressions and/or implications.

The review information form should include reviewer’s opinion of the manuscript. Reviewer’s recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions or reject), information regarding the appropriateness, content, originality, significance of the manuscript, and suggestions should be covered in the form. In general, revisions are likely to be 'major revisions' if additional measures are required to support the claims or the interpretations are not supported by the data, if further analysis is required that may change the conclusions, or if the methods used are inadequate or statistical errors have been made. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments and critiques.

Reviewers are asked to keep the editorial standards of BCP in mind and alert the editors if authors have not fully adhered to them. The review report is submitted through the online system.

Editor’s Final Decision

The journal editor makes the final decision taking into consideration of the reviewers’ comments. Reviewers are informed about the decision via an e-mail from the online system. In case that the reviewer has a comment on the decision, he/she should contact the editor. If the reviewer report has inappropriate comments and/or identity of the reviewer is disclosed in it, the editor may occasionally block access to the report.