Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology

Submissions

Submit your manuscripts to the journal via Editorial Manager.

Open Access Statement

This is an open access journal that provides free, immediate, and unrestricted online access to all its published content for readers around the world.

Open Access License

This journal provides immediate open access to its content under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 license. Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY 4.0 license.

Article Processing Charge (APC)

The Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology does not have any charges for processing or publishing the submitted articles.

Instructions for Authors

Articles must be in English, clearly and competently written and argued. They may not exceed 10.000 words in length (excluding references and tables). For the general preparation and structure of your manuscript, please consult APA's Instructions for All Authors. Before submitting a paper to RJAP, please verify it using APA's Checklist for Manuscript Submission. Submissions should include the following (as separate files):

• a Cover page with authors' names and affiliations, corresponding author details and any acknowledgments/statements; - an Abstract containing a maximum of 250 words, and up to five keywords;
• a Cover letter which states that the manuscript you submit is not under review elsewhere and briefly details why you believe it is suitable for publication in RJAP;
• the Manuscript (including all tables, figures and references), blinded for review;
• (upon resubmission) a Response to Reviewers file, in which the authors outline every change made in response to the comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed.

Registered Reports (RRs) as a submission format

How do RRs work: before conducting a study, authors can submit the Introduction and Methods section for peer review. If the study is in line with RJAP’s aims and scope, the editors will send the manuscript to reviewers (who will provide feedback on the proposed but not yet conducted study).

After the review process is completed, the authors will receive one of the following decisions:

• if reviewers consider that the report meets RJAP’s standards, the article will be accepted for publication (before the study has been conducted);
• if the reviewers suggest any modifications, the authors can implement them and resubmit the report;
• if the reviewers point out critical issues concerning the proposed research (e.g. flawed design, inconsistency between study aims and methods etc.), the report will be rejected.

The initial submission must also include an anticipated timeline for the research to be conducted and an anticipated date for manuscript submission. If the report is accepted for publication (with or without revisions), the authors will sign an agreement committing to submit the proposed research to RJAP and follow the anticipated timeline. The submitted manuscript (after the proposed research was conducted) should contain the same Introduction and Method sections as the initial submission, plus the new Results and Discussion sections. Once submitted, the manuscript will undergo the standard review process, in order to assure that the new sections are adequate as well.

One important feature of RRs is that once the report is accepted, the article will be published regardless of the statistical significance of its findings. That is, of course, assuming the study was conducted exactly in the initially submitted manner. This format does not prevent authors to explore their data and present additional exploratory analyses. Pre-registration of a study solely communicates to readers which analyses are exploratory and which are confirmatory.

The Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology does not have any charges for processing or publishing the submitted articles.

Peer review process

The Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors coordinate the Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology (RJAP) review process. Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript and its suitability to RJAP. After this initial evaluation, one of the following decisions will be made:

1. reject;
2. reject but resubmission encouraged (after the suggested modifications are operated);
3. suitable for review.

If a manuscript if considered suitable for review, an Associate Editor (AE) will be assigned to it. The AE selects two reviewers based on their area of expertise. For example: if a manuscript’s main focus is personality, reviewers with a background in personality research will be selected. The review process is double-blind (manuscripts are reviewed and are circulated without information about the authors).

After the review process is completed, the AE sends the reviews to the Editor-in-Chief, along with his/her recommendation concerning the manuscript. Based on this information, the Editor makes one of the following decisions:

1. reject;
2. major revisions required;
3. minor revisions required;
4. accept upon minor changes.

In the case of decisions b and c, after resubmission the manuscript is sent again for the second round of review (following the same process previously described). If necessary, a third and fourth round of review can also take place.

Publication ethics

Duties of the authors
Authors are encouraged to comply with the following ethical standards:

• Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original and that no text or data is presented without acknowledging the source. Any form of plagiarism constitutes unethical behavior and is considered unacceptable. All manuscripts are verified for similarity before entering the review process. A similarity percent higher than 10% (excluding references) with other online sources will result in the paper being sent back to the corresponding author.
• Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. In addition, authors should refrain from submitting a manuscript which is either a partial or a full copy of previously published material (to avoid self-plagiarism).
• Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest concerning their paper. All funding sources of the research should be listed in the Acknowledgement section. Any involvement of the funding organizations in the study design, data collection or interpretation of the findings should be mentioned. If no such involvement existed, then this should be stated.
• Authors should ensure that any research involving human or animal subjects was conducted in compliance with relevant institutional guidelines. Informed consent should be obtained from participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Authors should include in the manuscript a statement regarding the procedure for obtaining participants' informed consent.

Duties of the editors
Editors are encouraged to comply with the following ethical standards:

• Editors are under the obligation to ensure that each peer review process is conducted fairly and is unbiased. Editors are also required to evaluate a manuscript based on its contribution to the field and its content, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious beliefs, political/philosophical views and institutional affiliation of the authors.
• Editors should ensure that all manuscripts (that enter the review process) are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. If needed, the editors can request additional opinions in order to make an informed and fair editorial decision.
• Editors are responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of all materials submitted for review. Editors will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial advisers, as appropriate.
• Editors have the obligation to respond to and investigate any allegations of suspected misconduct. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. If convincing evidence of misconduct is presented, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note (as may be relevant) will be published in the journal.

Duties of the reviewers
Reviewers are encouraged to comply with the following ethical standards:

• The peer review process assists editors in making editorial decisions and may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers are required to participate in this process in a fair and unbiased manner.
• Any manuscripts received for review represent confidential documents and must be treated as such. Reviewers are not allowed to share information obtained during the peer review process with anyone. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively and reviewers should consider any personal bias or conflict of interest before accepting to review a paper. Reviewers are required to express their observations clearly, with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving their manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
• Any invited reviewer who feels that prompt reviewing will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation. Also, if a selected reviewer feels unqualified to review the manuscript, he is advised to decline the invitation.

Publishing timeline

• Average time to first decision: 7 days;
• Review time: 5 to 7 weeks;