The Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, Official Journal of the Federación Iberoamericana de Asociaciones de Psicología (FIAP) and of the Sociedad Universitaria de Investigación en Psicología y Salud (SUIPS) publishes bilbliometric and empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews focused on topics dealing with psychology and health sciences. Papers in Spanish, Portuguese and English may be submitted. The journal is driven to researchers, academics and professionals, especially from the Latin-American community, in Psychology and health sciences (e.g., medicine, nursing, physiotherapy) with the aim of serving as a bridge between those areas and to transfer evidence based knowledge to academics and professionals at real time.

The Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud
  • Editor: Ramón González Cabanach
  • Associate Editors:
  • Francisca Fariña
    Telmo Baptista

  • Editor: Ramón G. Cabanach
  • Frecuency: Biannual
  • Address: c/ Conde de Peñalver 45, 5º
    28006 Madrid
  • Phone: 91 444 90 20
  • Fax: 91 309 56 15

Review guide Review guide

In this document, a series of ideas are provided for reviewers, with the aim that they can use it as a guide when carrying out their task of reviewing the assigned scientific work.

1. Checkpoints

  • 1. Novelty and opportunity: of the object of study, of the methodology or both.
  • 2. Theoretical-conceptual framework: resentation of background or state of the art in a rich and meaningful way.
  • 3. Materials and methods: rationality, suitability, traceability.
  • 4. Results: novelty, significance, academic impact, social impact or both, synthesis of results.
  • 5. Information visualization: appropriate use of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc., to represent relevant information from the work.
  • 6. Discussion and conclusions: significance, comparison with other works, addressing questions, achievement of objectives, new research.
  • 7. Title and abstract: suitability, correctly expresses the content of the work.
  • 8. Structure: use of IMRaD (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion) or an equivalent structure suitable for the analysis of the work.
  • 10. Writing: good writing, easy comprehension, academic register, logical organization, connectivity, etc.

• Recommendation: do not reject a work that is favourable in all the above points but, in the reviewer's opinion, lacks appropriate writing. In this case, it is recommended to indicate this aspect in the review report and request a resubmission with a modification in the writing to make it more suitable. This way, it can avoided losing a novel and interesting work whose research has been properly developed but fails in writing.

2. Additional Relevant Issues/span>

a) What is important in research?

  • That it is significant. That is, it makes valuable contributions to the field (theory) or to society (solutions), or preferably, to both.
  • Methodology. It should be appropriate to the object of study and the objectives.
  • Research should be valid and presented in a transparent, traceable, and replicable manner.
  • The chosen format to synthesize the results is essential.

b) What is important in an article?

  • That it is well written. It should be understandable even by non-specialists in the field. An article that is too specialized and understood only by the authors is of no use.
  • Structure: applying IMRaD or an equivalent for the transparency it imposes.
  • Theoretical framework, discussion, and conclusions.

3. Recommendations for preparing the peer review report.

a) Summary

  • Characteristics of the research and its significance or most significant contributions.

b) Issues

  • Major (usually related to the research).
  • Minor (usually related to the manuscript).

c) Recommendations

  • Well-reasoned improvement proposals.

Format of reviewer comments

  • Unitary paragraphs: each paragraph should focus on one idea.
  • Observations and recommendations: preferably in a list format.
  • Length: between 1 and 3 pages (approximate).
  • Explicitly avoid:
  • Long paragraphs, with subordinate sentences, with more than one idea, and with different intertwined recommendations.
  • Trying to minimize personal biases as much as possible.
  • Express ideas and recommendations in a way that authors can work with.

Summarizing, as a final suggestion for reviewers, when indicating any recommendation for the authors (SEES scheme - Publons Academy):

  • 1. Make a Statement.
  • 2. Explain your reasons.
  • 3. Provide an Example.
  • 4. Suggest a Solution.
Once the magazine has been published, the full text of all the articles is available in