Inside the Mind of a JEPS Editor: What we Look for in Submissions
As Editor-In-Chief of the Journal of European Psychology Students (JEPS), I am frequently asked what defines a strong manuscript and what we, as editors, prioritize when reviewing submissions. Many students assume that only “perfect” studies—or those with statistically significant results—are worth submitting. This belief often discourages early-career researchers from sharing their work and engaging with the publication process. However, that assumption could not be further from the truth. What matters most to us is not perfection, but whether submissions are rigorous, transparent, ethical, and meaningfully contribute to the broader conversation in psychology.
JEPS exists to support and showcase student-led research, and our editorial philosophy reflects this mission. We recognize that learning how to conduct and communicate research is a process, and we view submissions not merely as products to be judged, but as opportunities for development. In this blog post, I want to take you inside the editorial mindset by explaining what we hope to see in submissions, common pitfalls that can undermine otherwise promising work, and why student research, when conducted thoughtfully, can make a valuable contribution to psychological science.
First Things First: Psychology Must be at the Core
JEPS is a journal dedicated to psychological science. While psychology is an inherently interdisciplinary field, submissions must be clearly rooted in psychological theory, concepts, or practice. Many strong papers draw on perspectives from related disciplines such as sociology, education, neuroscience, or public health, and this interdisciplinarity is welcome. However, the psychological relevance of the work must be explicit and well-justified. Authors do not necessarily need to hold a degree in psychology, but their research questions, hypotheses, and interpretations should be grounded in psychological literature. For instance, a study on workplace motivation framed through organizational or social psychology would clearly fall within scope, as would an experiment testing memory recall strategies. In contrast, a purely medical or technical study without a clear psychological dimension would be unlikely to meet our criteria.
Submission Guidelines and Scope
Before a reviewer begins evaluating the content of a manuscript, we assess whether it meets JEPS’s formal requirements. These submission guidelines are not arbitrary; they exist to ensure fairness, consistency, and efficiency in the review process. First authors must be students or have completed their degree within the past two years, and manuscripts must not be previously published elsewhere. Preprints are permitted, but they must be clearly declared at the time of submission.
Manuscripts must also adhere to formatting and stylistic requirements, including APA style, anonymization for double-blind peer review, and appropriate structuring of sections. Surprisingly often, submissions are delayed or rejected because these basic requirements were not met. While this can feel frustrating, following the guidelines carefully demonstrates professionalism and respect for reviewers’ time. It also allows reviewers to focus on the substance of your work rather than avoidable technical issues.
Ethics and Transparency
Ethical integrity is foundational to psychological research, and JEPS takes this responsibility seriously. Any study involving human participants or animals must demonstrate compliance with established ethical standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013). Authors are expected to report ethics approval from an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee, along with clear descriptions of informed consent procedures, participant rights, and confidentiality safeguards.
Transparency extends beyond ethics approval. JEPS requires authors to include Open Data Statements, disclose funding sources, and declare any competing interests. These practices are not meant to create barriers, but to promote trust in the research process. Open science principles help ensure that findings can be evaluated, replicated, and built upon by others. Even when data cannot be shared openly, for example, due to privacy concerns, authors should explain these limitations clearly.
The Role of Pre-Registration
One of the most important methodological developments in psychology over the past decade has been the increased use of pre-registration. Pre-registering hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans before data collection helps prevent questionable research practices such as p-hacking or HARKing (i.e., hypothesizing after the results are known). JEPS strongly encourages pre-registration, although it is not mandatory.
As editors, we view pre-registration as a strong indicator of methodological rigor and transparency. The American Psychological Association has identified pre-registration as a key practice for improving reproducibility (Appelbaum et al., 2019), and large-scale initiatives in open science have demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing bias (Nosek et al., 2018). Papers that include pre-registration often stand out during review.
Beyond Statistical Significance
Common Weaknesses to Avoid
Even promising manuscripts can be undermined by recurring issues. Some of the most common weaknesses we encounter include:
- Vague or poorly justified research questions that lack a clear theoretical basis
- Insufficient methodological detail, making replication difficult or impossible
- Missing or unclear ethics approval documentation
- Lack of transparency in data reporting, analysis decisions, or exclusions
- Overstated claims in the discussion that are not supported by the evidence
- Writing that is unclear, overly complex, or difficult to follow
What Makes a Submission Shine
On the other hand, certain qualities consistently elevate manuscripts during the review process. Strong submissions typically feature clear, engaging writing that explains not only what was done, but why it matters. They situate the research within existing literature while clearly articulating the study’s contribution.
Novelty can take many forms, including innovative designs, under-studied populations, or creative applications of existing theories. Rigor is equally important: appropriate statistical analyses, careful reporting, and transparent research practices all signal high-quality work. Manuscripts that include open data and code, author contribution statements using the CRediT taxonomy, ORCID IDs, and thorough funding and conflict disclosures demonstrate a strong commitment to responsible research.
Encouragement for Aspiring Authors
Publishing in JEPS is not about producing a flawless paper; it is about engaging in the scientific process and learning from it. Every submission receives constructive feedback, and even manuscripts that require substantial revision are treated as opportunities for growth. Revisions are a normal and valuable part of academic publishing, especially for early-career researchers.
As a student-focused journal, JEPS is committed to supporting authors who are still developing their research and writing skills. We encourage you to view submission not as a final judgment on your abilities, but as a step in your development as a researcher. Many successful publications began as imperfect drafts that improved through thoughtful revision and dialogue with reviewers
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, what we hope for as editors is simple: we want authors to approach publishing not as a hurdle to overcome, but as a meaningful contribution to collective knowledge. We value rigor, transparency, and ethical integrity far more than flashy findings or perfect results. We also encourage you to pre-register your studies, share your data responsibly, and write clearly and thoughtfully about your work.
JEPS is really more than a journal; it is a community of student researchers learning together about what good science looks like. We look forward to seeing your submissions, and, more importantly, to seeing you grow as a researcher through the process of scientific publishing.
References
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
World Medical Association (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053