Peer Review

Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial screening by one of the main editors (and sometimes an additional associate editor), to assess whether a submission matches the journal's profile and scope. If the following criteria are not met, a manuscript will be desk-rejected:

I. Scope

The following criteria must be met:

  • Does the manuscript substantially engage and advance the understanding of social problems, the alleviation of such problems, or promoting social justice?
  • Is the research question social-psychological in nature?

Additionally, at least one of the following criteria has to be met:

  • Does the manuscript deal with issues relevant to areas of the world underrepresented in psychology research, or was the research conducted among populations and/or by scholars from backgrounds underrepresented in psychology research?
  • Does the manuscript introduce new research methods, or utilise methods that are underrepresented in social psychology research (e.g., qualitative methods, decolonial approaches)?
  • Does the manuscript contribute to ASPS as a forum for innovation, questioning dominant assumptions, theoretical perspectives, and critical debate?
  • Does the manuscript have the potential to inspire practical applications to mitigate social problems and promote social justice?
  • Does the manuscript utilise the perspectives of other disciplines (where relevant) to enrich social psychological theory?

II. Theory

The following criteria have to be met:

  • Does the manuscript consider the historical, political, economic, and socio-cultural context that shapes research questions and findings?
  • Is the research well founded, as documented in a coherent, compelling, and critical review of theoretical and (where applicable) empirical literature that situates the research meaningfully in relevant contexts?
  • Does the manuscript make its theoretical positioning explicit?

III. Methodology (for empirical manuscripts)

The following criteria have to be met:

  • Are the methods, sample(s), and analytical procedures appropriate in light of the research questions, thoroughly and transparently documented (see also our Open science criteria here); and is the research carried out carefully (so that data quality and trustworthiness are ensured)?
  • Is the sample size appropriate and justified (e.g., through statistical power analysis for quantitative studies or guidelines for qualitative research)?
  • For quantitative papers reporting only a single study, are the findings from a representative sample of the population or a population that is underrepresented in social psychological research?
  • If quantitative studies were conducted with crowdsourcing (e.g., MTurk, Prolific) or other convenience sampling methods that strongly limit the sample’s characteristics (e.g., student samples), are data quality issues addressed (e.g., attention and comprehension checks, bots, non-naivete of participants) and are the findings replicated in a different type of sample?

Additionally, the following criteria have to be met (ideally already in the first version submitted, but can be refined for the revisions):

  • Are limitations of the sample (e.g., ecological validity, generalizability and distribution of key variables for quantitative studies; transferability for qualitative studies) critically discussed?
  • Are the sample characteristics that are central to the research question and important for contextualizing and interpreting the findings reported (e.g., race and/or ethnicity depending on what is relevant in the context, nationality and/or immigration status, gender, social class, where recruited and how); and does the sample description avoid homogenizing the sample by addressing crucial intersecting social positions (such as those mentioned above) and intragroup differences?
  • Does the manuscript show sensitivity to ethical issues, including power dynamics within the research (i.e. reflexivity) and potential political and societal consequences of the research?

IV. Presentation

The following criteria have to be met (ideally already in the first version submitted, but can be refined throughout the revisions):

  • Is the manuscript written in a style accessible to a broad audience?
  • Is the presentation clear and well-structured, and (where applicable) is there parsimony in using tables and figures?

Having passed the first stage, manuscripts are assigned to a handling editor, who will organize the peer-review process and recruit reviews from at least two (sometimes more) experts. We aim to reach a first decision within three to four months of submission. However, we note that this is not always possible, and has become increasingly more difficult due to the increased workload for academics within the neoliberal university context and ongoing global crises.