This is part of the instructions received by the reviewers together with the manuscript to be reviewed: "PSICOLOGICA publishes empirical and theoretical papers about methodology (statistical, psychometric, experimental) and experimentation (attention, perception, human and animal cognition). General guidelines to assess the empirical papers are:
1.-Inmediate reason for rejection: Design or statistical analysis problems. That is, the research is not methodologically well founded and no conclusion can be extracted. The paper must automatically be rejected.
2.-Originality or theoretical relevance of the paper. This is "an opinion" criterion that categorizes a paper from a simple replication to a theoretically interesting and sound research. This leads to an estimation judgement of acceptance-rejection.
3.-Detailed review of the different sections of the paper, pointing out to local deficiencies and leading to suggestions for improvement. This is a criterion for introduction of changes.
4.-Formal aspects: Graphs, tables, keywords, and so on, leading to a recommendation of changes.
Theoretical papers (mostly review papers) are evaluated according to the following guidelines:
1.-Degree of completeness of the review (looking to databases, such as Psyclit). Rejection if the paper is not complete
2.-Degree of originality of the conclusions. We do not accept "reviews" as a simple listing of results or data with regard to a research subject. The review must reach some original conclusions. This is a judgment criterion leading to accept-reject.
3.-Degree of theoretical relevance of the reviewed subject. The action editor will take this judgement into account.
4.-Formal aspects: presence of keywords, abstract and related formal aspects.
We ask from the reviewers to take into account the above criteria and take one of the following decisions: Accept, Accept with changes, presents rejection but subject to changes and rejection. The decision must be founded. The reviewer receives also some indications about the importance of the review process.