Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. BJPsych Advances
  4. Peer reviewer guidelines
Peer reviewer guidelines

This journal uses a single-blind model of peer review.

For some useful tips about peer review, read this recent BJPsych Advances here.

Thank you for agreeing to review this BJPsych Advances submission for us. Please consider the following questions in preparing your review. You will probably have other comments you wish to make about the submission and the approach taken by the authors and these will be most welcome.

Please do not indicate in the comments to the author your view on whether the submission should be published or not.

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Reviewers must not share the manuscript with colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor.

Key question for all article types

Is this submission likely to provide new information and augment the knowledge of practising psychiatrists?

BJPsych Advances Article Types

You may be asked to review any of the following submission types and further details about each are included in the instructions for contributors. BJPsych Advances submissions are aimed at the CPD needs of consultant psychiatrists and academic quality is crucial.

  • Review Articles should be educational pieces, not research or systematic review papers. They should be factual, lucid and informative, with a clear explanation of any points of technique that can be used in everyday practice. Ideally, an article should be both a digest of many opinions on a subject and also give a clear lead as to what, in the authors’ opinion, would be good practice.
  • Commentaries comment on the content of a specific article. They are usually commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief and published in the same issue as the full article. The aim of a commentary is to concentrate on what is missing from the original article, what the Commentator thinks should be emphasised and what the Commentator disagrees with.
  • Clinical Reflections consider clinical, ethical or research dilemmas or uncertainties that present in day-to-day practice. They are the equivalent of thinking aloud and deliberating on the matter in hand. They do not necessarily provide answers but should be discursive enough to give the reader “food for thought”.
  • Refreshments provide a short, succinct summary of a single topic to be read as a quick update by practising psychiatrists. The aim is to help readers improve their knowledge and practice in areas outside their field of expertise. The content should be accurate and focus on the topic in the title. It should highlight recent developments in the area being discussed.


Review Article Guidance

1. Educational content

  • Is the material informative, well-reasoned and well-constructed?
  • Can the educational principles be clearly understood by a non-expert in the field?
  • Does the submission represent sensible opinion?
  • If there is controversy, is this acknowledged?

2. Clinical relevance

  • Has the author made the submission clinically relevant, e.g. by inclusion of case vignettes?
  • Review articles should be narrative in nature: they are not intended to be systematic reviews of the literature (no need for PRISMA diagrams, etc.).
  • Review articles should be reflective and critical in their approach.

3. Structure, style and appearance

  • Does the abstract reflect the content of the paper?
  • Do the headings and subheadings follow a logical order?
  • Is the paper comprehensible and are terms clearly explained; this is particularly relevant when a topic is highly specialised?
  • Is the English clear and unambiguous?
  • Is the educational style appropriate – are boxes, bullets, vignettes, visual images and so on used to good effect? If you think that more should be included, it would be helpful if you could suggest where they might go and in what format (you do not have to supply them).
  • Is there a concluding paragraph? If not, should there be?

4. References and statistics

  • BJPsych Advances’ purpose is further education, not original research. We advise that all content overlap with published or submitted content must be acknowledged and cited. A balance should be struck between referencing every statement and making extensive claims without backing them up.
  • Please note any concerns with regard to potential plagiarism in your review.
  • If the number of references exceeds 40 or so (for a full article), and/or if multiple references (3 or more) are cited after points in the text, are they all necessary?
  • If lots of statistics/data (percentages, confidence intervals, etc.) are shown, are they necessary? It is often better to interpret data than to list them.

5. Length

We suggest that articles should be between 4000 - 5000 words but the length is not as important as the quality of the learning experience. If the article is too concise or elliptical, please identify areas that should be expanded on, or new aspects that might be included. If it is unclear or too detailed, indicate which sections should be shortened or cut. Word counts for all submission types are included in the Instructions for contributors.

6. BJPsych Advances Articles: Learning Objectives and MCQs

Learning objectives and MCQs are reviewed separately by the BJPsych Advances Trainee Editors and do not need to be considered as part of a full review. Further details about the learning objectives and MCQs are included below for information.

Three Learning Objectives

  • All articles should include three learning objectives.
  • Learning objectives should be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound.
  • Further guidance is given in the Instructions for contributors.


Five MCQs (or three EMIs)

  • All articles should include five MCQs, each with five options (a–e). Authors may, if they prefer, include three extended matching items (EMIs) instead of MCQs.
  • For each MCQ, readers identify the single best option.
  • MCQs should be reasonably challenging, unambiguous and derived only from the text and the answers should be provided.
  • If you have others you believe should be included, please detail these.


For more information about the journal visit: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/information

For more information on how to review, visit: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/peer-review

For guidance on ethical peer review, visit: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/peer-review/ethics-in-peer-review.