About the Journal

Focus and Scope

The Revista Colombiana de Psicología (RCP) aims to reach educational and cultural institutions interested in psychological science, as well as psychologists and students of psychology or related disciplines. The goal of the journal is to increase public knowledge about psychology in Latin America by publishing original, peer-reviewed, articles within the several fields of psychology. In this way, RCP aims at creating a stronger academic community in this field in Latin America and to spread state-of-the-art research agendas at the international level.

RCP publishes empirical and theoretical works that follow the guidelines accepted by the different scientific and theoretical perspectives in psychology and presented as essays, meta-analyses, literature reviews, and empirical studies.

Peer Review Process

The process of publication of an article in the Colombian Journal of Psychology follows the next steps. Once the manuscript has been submitted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), this is reviewed in the first place, by the Editorial Team, in order to assess whether or not the document fulfills the basic criteria for its publication. If the manuscript is approved in the step, it will be sent to expert reviewers in the area, who will provide their concept about it. This process can take between 6 and 12 months, however, this time will depend mainly on the time schedule of the journal, the quality of the article, and the promptness with which authors modify the article with the suggested changes.

The format can be found on the right panel of the page.

Ethical Guidelines

All articles must have an IRB or equivalent ethical committee approval. Informe consent is required for studies including direct data collection with the exceptions mentioned in the APA ethical guidelines. Preregistration and data availability is not required, but it is recommended.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content under the principle that making research available to the public for free generates a larger exchange of scientific knowledge at a global scale.

Estadísticas (Google Analytics - Users) (Visitas)

Reviewer Guidelines

To Accept and Upload a Review 

Please have in mind the following information when conducting your review.

a) In the step 1 of the REVIEW STEPS section, you have to accept the review.


b) In the step 3 of the REVIEW STEPS section, you can download the manuscript. This option only will be available if you previously accepted the review in step 1.


c) You can upload your review in the step 4 of the REVIEW STEPS section by clicking on the small icon beside the “revisions” word. This action will activate a new window, in which you can write your comments to the article. If the window does not open, it is necessary to review the cookies configuration of your browser. This option only will be available if you previously accepted the review in step 1

d) If you want to upload a file (e.g., a commented manuscript), you can do so in the step 5 of the REVIEW STEPS section. To do so, you need to “Seleccionar un archivo” (select a file) and then click in the upload button.


e) You have to choose a recommendation for the article. Among the options
available in the menu, you can choose among (See below for specific criteria):
                        Accept Submission: Accept without changes.
                        Revisions Required: Major Revisions are needed
                        Decline Submission: Reject
Any other recommendation will be interpreted as a rejection.

 

Peer Review Instructions

 

Please have in mind the following information when conducting your review.

1. The manuscript should cover a topic close to your area of expertise. If that is not the case, we appreciate that you inform us of that situation, and do not conduct the review.

2. Be sure that you do not have any conflict of interest to review the article, by any reason (e.g., institutional, financial, personal). However, you should know that the authors will not know your identity.

3. Be sure you have the time to conduct a careful review of the article.

4. Have in mind that your role as reviewer is providing the editor with the means to make an informed decision about the publication of the article, as well as, providing authors with suggestions to improve the manuscript. Your critics, arguments and suggestions will be useful to the editor and the authors, if they are carefully documented and if they are constructive. In that sense, later you will find a form to make your comments regarding each aspect of the article. We will appreciate if you include specific suggestions on how to solve your critical comments to the article. Please, DO NOT include offensive or dismissive comments, and, in general do not use your review as space for personal attacks.

5. Protect the document. Do not cited before it is published and do not use the information included in it for your research or any other personal advantage. This information is confidential.

6. Remember that your task as a reviewer is to comment on the scientific aspects of the manuscript, and not its style. However, if you observe repetitive mistakes, please let us know.

Answer SOME of the following questions regarding the different criteria that the Colombian Journal of Psychology considers relevant to assess the publication of an article.

Originality

Does the manuscript propose an original and new idea (for a local journal)? Does it adds new knowledge to the research area?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organization and Structure

 

Is the general organization of the manuscript clear and efficient? Is it well written?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

¿Do the title and the abstract describe correctly the content of the manuscript? ¿Does the keywords good descriptors of the documents´ content?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ethical Aspects

From your point of view, the article fulfills the ethical requirements related to subjects´ rights, data fabrication or falsification, inadequate analysis, use of deceiving graphs, double publication, and omission of citations or plagiarism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question for specific types of articles

1. Empirical article: This type of article presents the results of research projects that include data collection and analysis. The general structure of this type of article should include at least four sections: introduction, methodology, results and conclusions.  

2. Reflection article: This type of article presents results from research that reflects and develops theory from an analytical, interpretative or cricital perspective on some field of subfield with psychology, using original sources.

3. Lit. review article. This type of article analyzes and integrates systematically the results of empirical articles, published or unpublished, with the goal to identify the advances and tendencies of development within a field of psychology. This type of article is characterizaed by using at least 50 references.

EMPIRICAL ARTICLES

Introduction

Does the article reviews relevant theoretical and empirical precedents in the field? Does the literature reviewed in the article supports in a straightforward manner the problem and goal of the article?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are the variables and hypothesis of the article clearly defined?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method

Is the method pertinent to answer the research question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the sample appropriate? Are the characteristics of the sample and process of selection clearly described?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are the instruments adequately described? Is it clear how data were recollected and the measures are explained? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the procedure clearly described? Is there enough information to replicate the study?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results

Is the data analysis appropriate? Are the statistical methods, if applied, pertinent?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are the results relevant to answer the research question? Are the results well-organized and clear?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are tables and figures clear and pertinent?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

Does the article explore the way in which the results answer the research question and their relationship with the hypothesis of the study?  Does the article present the importance of the study in the field of research?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are the conclusions derived from the results? The article connects the conclusions with relevant literature?

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFLECTION ARTICLES/ESSAYS

Does the text have a clear argument that is developed consistently in all the document?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are the conclusions consistent with the arguments in the document?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are the arguments clearly supported by relevant prior research in the field?

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIT. REVIEW ARTICLES

Does the article cite the more relevant references in the area?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a critical approach regarding the presented literature? Does the article propose new interpretations to prior literature?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the article organize the literature in a clear and pertinent manner?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

Based on your answers, please select from the list your recommendation for the manuscript. 

You can upload you review following these steps: you can select your decision in the system following the instructions presented at the beginning of this guideline.

 

0. Accept. This option applies when the manuscript has the characteristics required for publication in the journal and, therefore, can be publish in its current state, without changes.

1. Revise. This option applies when the manuscript requires minor changes in terms of form, analysis and lit. review. The manuscript is accepted but needs minor changes to be published.

2. Revise and submit. This option must be used in cases in which the article presents a high relevance in some level (e.g., evidence, method) but the development is not completely correct. In these cases, the manuscript is not accepted but can be consider for further review. Please, point out which changes are indispensable, and which are optional.

3. Rejection. The manuscript must be rejected when indispensable changes that imply:

a) Global changes in the structure of the text, and the inclusion of new sections of lit. review.

b) New large data analysis procedures.

c) Additional data recollections in a similar scale to that presented in the study.

d) The presentation of additional evidence to complement the theoretical model.

e) Recurring writing and grammatical mistakes that imply a complete style proofread of the text.

Additionally, the article can be rejected if:

a) The article does not relate to psychological questions or interdisciplinary debates connected to this discipline.

b) The article has methodological problems that cannot be solved without an additional data recollection.

c) The research question is not clear.

d) The research question cannot be solved with presented data.

Note. If you want to send the manuscript with comments and you are going to use the comment tool in MS Word, please be sure of changing your user name to keep your comments anonymous.