Editorial Policies

Ethical and transparent publishing standards for depression research.

Journal of Depression and Therapy adheres to rigorous ethical standards, transparent reporting, and single blind peer review. We follow COPE aligned practices to protect the integrity of mental health research.

All submissions are screened for scope, ethical compliance, and reporting completeness before peer review.

• Human subject approvals and informed consent required
• Conflict of interest disclosures for all authors
• Clinical trial registration when applicable
• Plagiarism screening and originality checks
• Data availability statements for reproducibility

• Single blind review by subject experts
• Editors assess scope and methodological rigor
• Reviewers focus on clinical relevance and transparency
• Authors respond to reviewer feedback before acceptance

The journal supports corrections, retractions, or updates when necessary to preserve the scientific record. Authors are expected to notify the editorial office promptly if errors are identified.

• Use validated depression scales and outcome measures
• Describe intervention details and dosage clearly
• Report adherence, attrition, and protocol deviations
• Provide statistical rationale and limitations

These standards protect participants and uphold research integrity.

• Report conflicts of interest for all authors
• Provide ethics approval and consent statements
• Register clinical trials when required
• Disclose funding sources and sponsor roles
• Provide data availability statements
• Avoid plagiarism or duplicate submissions
• Describe image processing steps if used
• Report limitations and potential biases
• Clarify authorship contributions
• Respond to editorial queries promptly
• Report corrections or errors immediately
• Protect participant privacy and confidentiality
• Follow reporting guidelines for interventions
• Provide transparency for statistical methods
• Include safety monitoring details
• Disclose any competing clinical roles
• Avoid coercive recruitment practices
• Provide clear withdrawal procedures
• State adverse event reporting standards
• Use culturally sensitive language

These checks support ethical compliance and transparency.

• Explain how adverse events are reported
• Include transparency for data exclusions
• Disclose any sponsor influence
• Provide clear withdrawal procedures
• Describe participant compensation
• Clarify authorship contributions
• Report compliance with local regulations
• Provide safeguards for vulnerable groups
• Explain correction procedures for errors
• Describe peer review confidentiality

Complete, well structured submissions move through review more efficiently and reduce follow up questions.

Clear policies protect participants and the integrity of the record.

• Report any suspected misconduct promptly
• Avoid duplicate submission across journals
• Disclose sponsor roles in study design
• Provide transparency for data exclusions
• Document safety monitoring procedures
• Report adverse events clearly
• Clarify author contributions and roles
• Protect vulnerable populations in research
• Ensure confidentiality during peer review
• Follow correction procedures when needed

These small checks help keep manuscripts and communications consistent.

• Keep terminology consistent across sections
• Confirm that tables match reported results
• Use clear headings that guide reviewers
• Provide concise summaries of key findings
• Check that ethics statements are visible
• Align figures with outcome descriptions
• Include clinical implications in discussion
• Verify that all links are current

Quality checks reduce revision cycles and accelerate review.

• Use plain language for complex findings
• Avoid unnecessary jargon or acronyms
• Ensure methods are described in sequence
• Clarify participant flow and attrition
• Report baseline characteristics clearly
• State limitations and generalizability
• Include acknowledgments where needed
• Double check citation formatting

Clear scope alignment improves editorial screening outcomes.

• Confirm scope alignment before submission
• Summarize key takeaways for clinicians
• Highlight novelty in the cover letter
• Provide complete author contact details
• Indicate any supplemental material
• Note any clinical trial registrations
• Share funding statements explicitly
• Check spelling of assessment instruments

These final reminders help keep submissions consistent and reduce delays during editorial checks and production workflows.

• Confirm contact details and institutional affiliations
• Verify that all required statements are present
• Check formatting against journal instructions

Strong documentation helps reviewers focus on the science and clinical impact. Ensure that terminology, outcome measures, and intervention details are consistent across all sections.