1.   When considering submitting to Perspectives on Psychological Science (PPS), authors are encouraged to contact the editor. In most cases, some feedback can be given about the appropriateness of the potential submission based on a brief description of the article, or outline of the paper. Because the review process is often lengthy and time-consuming, early feedback from the editor may help authors decide whether to submit. Authors are strongly encouraged to read the guidelines for reviewers for PPS in order to know how their submitted manuscript is likely to be evaluated.

2.      Please submit papers via email attachments (or on a CD) in a format that is readable by Microsoft Word.  The transmittal letter and other auxiliary materials may also be submitted via attachment.  Manuscripts must be readable by Microsoft Word so that they can be easily opened by the majority of reviewers.  Papers should not be submitted in formats that require large storage space or transmission time (e.g., PDF files).

 3.      All submissions should be prepared according to the latest Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. All submitted manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 120 words, typed on a separate page. Authors are also encouraged to submit a longer, 500-word summary of their paper.

4.      Authors should include 2 to 3 of their other papers that are closest to the submitted work. Authors are obliged to send other papers, either published or unpublished, that are similar to the submitted work so that the editors might judge the overlap of these other papers with the submission. In some cases more than 3 papers should be sent if there are multiple authors on the submission.

5.      Authors are encouraged to send a list of suggested reviewers, including some who they believe might be critical of the submitted work. Authors should note their relation to the suggested reviewers, and the likely views of the suggested reviewers, including noting those who might be most critical. Up to 10 reviewers can be suggested, and the editors are likely to choose at least one or two from the list.

6.      Authors should note that the journal will have a high rejection rate. Thus, articles will frequently be rejected not because of serious faults, but because the reviewers and editors judge the paper to fall below the high importance threshold for this journal.

7.      Once three months have passed since submission, authors should feel free to contact with the editorial office to determine the status of the submitted paper.

8.      Manuscripts under submission elsewhere may not be simultaneously submitted to PPS. Authors should state in their submission letter that the paper is not under submission elsewhere, and has not been published before.

9.      If an article has been submitted to another journal and rejected there, authors should mention this fact to the editor, and supply the former reviews when possible. In this case, the authors should note in their letter to the editor why they believe that the paper might be publishable in PPS even though it was rejected elsewhere. Authors should recognize that editors very frequently learn about earlier rejections because reviewers often have seen the paper before. Thus, it is often in the interests of authors to disclose prior rejections to the editor upon submission.

10.  Authors may request the use of masked format for the review process, and the editor will determine whether it is appropriate in each case. Authors are responsible for preparing their submissions appropriately if they desire masked reviews.

11.  It is anticipated that a number of articles will be returned to authors without review because in the judgment of the editor they are very likely not publishable in the journal. This saves the time of reviewers and also speeds the authors chances of submitting elsewhere.

12.  It is presumed that all authors of a submission have agreed to the listing and order of authorship, and have approved of the submitted manuscript.

13.  When original data are presented in the submission, the author should include a statement in the transmittal letter that the data were collected in accordance with applicable human research participants ethical guidelines. In the case of original research with animals, authors should state in the transmittal letter that the animal care was in accord with institutional guidelines.

14.  In a few cases authors feel that they have been aggrieved by the review process, or that a very bad decision has been made. This is not simply the situation where an author feels that the wrong decision was made; the concern in these rare cases is one in which an author believes not just that the wrong conclusion was reached, but that it was reached based on clearly incorrect information, or on a faulty review process. In these cases, the author may contact the editor and express the concerns. In such an instance, the editor will consider an appeal of the decision in which additional input on the submission is sought. Such a procedure is expected to occur only rarely, and may in a small percentage of cases result in a reversal of the original decision.

15.  It is anticipated that media releases will be written for some articles published in PPS.  Such releases generally benefit the field of psychology, and the author as well. However, some authors might not desire a press release about their article, and they should notify the editor of this when their paper is accepted.

16.  Reviewers inform the editor of the strengths and weaknesses of submissions, as well as of their view of the overall contribution of papers. It is the editors responsibility to make acceptance and rejection decisions. Such decisions are not based on a vote by reviewers, and at times the judgment of the editor may diverge from the evaluations of a majority of reviewers.

17.  Authors who submit to PPS may be called on to review for the journal, as well. Although reviewing receives few external rewards, it is necessary for the functioning of journals. Furthermore, it is important that the very best scientists provide reviews. Therefore, scholars who submit works to the journal will be expected to also occasionally review for the journal.