Submissions

Author Guidelines

Thank you for choosing to submit your paper to the European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy. The journal aims to be an accessible forum that advances the theory and practice of therapy and promotes practitioner orientated research.  In seeking to celebrate the qualitative values of openness, inclusiveness, creativity and respect for diversity, we welcome contributions from diverse methodological and cultural perspectives. More creative presentations using artwork or photos are also welcomed.

We accept empirical research reports (up to 9,000 words), reflective/philosophical reviews (up to 9,000 words) or short reports (1,000 words). Recommended word counts exclude references, and include title, abstract and tables, but we can be flexible. (Please discuss any variations with the Editor.)   

For Empirical research reports the use of standard headings are recommended e.g., 'Introduction', Literature review', 'Methodology', 'Findings' and 'Discussion' (including critical evaluation of findings and methodology) . Creative presentations are welcomed, however.  

For Literature Reviews, a critical (rather than just descriptive) approach which analytically recognises debates in the field is recommended.

For Short Reports follow the above as relevant. If it is an empirical summary (extended abstract) then, the usual headings are recommended. For reflective, creative or philosophical pieces, less structured approaches are acceptable.

Once you have checked that your paper complies with the guidelines you can submit it by clicking on Submissions from the "About" menu or by clicking "Make a new submission". If you have any difficulty submitting your manuscript please contact either the Editor (Nollaig Frost - email nollaig.frost@ucc.ie) or Technical Support (Ben Potter - email: ben.potter@nationalcomputersolutions.co.uk). 

Given our online format, we have the space to be creative, to use photos, pictures, links to online sources, and also we can offer longer endnotes and appendices. For example, it might be helpful to provide quotations from participants and other data in the original language of the author/participants. You are also welcome to submit your abstract and any appendices in your first language as well as the one in English.

All submissions need to comply with the following. If the submission does not follow these guidelines, the Editor may "Reject" your submission with advice to "Resubmit":

• The author ensures the relevance of their article for this journal and readership in terms of explicitly being both about "research" (scholarly activity) and of particular relevance to the field of psychotherapy.
• The author ensures that their research has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner with attention paid to legal requirements and relevant professional guidelines. This includes appropriately referencing source material. Where case material is used, please make explicit any permissions obtained. It also includes addressing the ethical issues around the work with participants beyond basic acknowledgements about consent/confidentiality. (Here, for instance, you might discuss your duty of care and concern for the participants' well being.)
• Please note the guidance in the Submission Checklist above.  A separate title page with author details needs to be attached and two copies of the article need to be downloaded (one with title page details and one blind).
• The paper starts with a one paragraph (i.e. without headings) summarising abstract of fewer than 200 words. In the case of empirical research reports, the abstract should clearly state the research aims, methodology, findings and conclusions.
• The author ensures the "methodological integrity" of their chosen methdology. Is there a clear link to epistemological (i.e. philosophy + methodology) commitments and is the methodology coherent and consistently applied?
• If the research was not originally conducted in the English language, authors are invited to submit data in the original language in an appendix. It would also be possible to include another abstract in addition to the one in English. (Being an online journal we can support these extra elements).
• Given the practice orientation of the journal, authors are encouraged to explore critically and explicitly the relevance to, or implications for, psychotherapy practice in the paper, perhaps in the Discussion Section.
• Where possible, give the doi (the link to the online source) using any of the following formats (though please try to be consistent). 
  • https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000014
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000014
  • doi:10.1037/arc0000014 

• Ensure that the source of all cited and reproduced material is appropriately acknowledged and adheres to the particular referencing requirements outlined in the APA Guidelines (7th edition- See: https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/reference-guide.pdf). Please check all quotations carefully to make sure they are exactly as in the original version, including spelling, punctuation, indents, wording, bolding, italics, formatting, etc. Use 3-point dots (ellipses) to indicate text left out of a single sentence; use 4-point dots to indicate material left out between different sentences or paragraphs.

• The European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy requires authors to acknowledge any use of generative Artificial Intelligence (such as ChatGPT) and other technologies (such as NVivo) when they are used to generate ideas and data, assist in analysis, and/or to present findings. We suggest authors provide relevant references and perhaps a description of the technology (including when it was accessed and how it was used) either in the text or Acknowledgements section.

• Finally, please take care also with referencing format. APA supplies this useful guide for their referencing :  https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples   For example: 

Journal article:

Halling, S. (2002). Making phenomenology accessible to a wider audience. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 33(1), 19-38.

Hill, H. R. M., Crowe, T. P., & Gonsalvez, C. J. (2016). Reflective dialogue in clinical supervision: A pilot study involving collaborative review of supervision videos. Psychotherapy Research, 26(3), 263–278.

Van Manen, M. (2017). Phenomenology in its original sense. Qualitative Health Research, 27, 810-825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732317699381

Van Der Merwe, H., & Wetherell, M. (under review). The emotional psychologist: A qualitative investigation of norms, dilemmas and contradictions in accounts of practice. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology.

Hamfi, A. G. (1981). The funny nature of dogs. E-journal of Applied Psychology, 2(2), 38-48. Retrieved from http://ojs.lib.swin.edu.au/index.php/fdo

Grady, J. S., Her, M., Moreno, G., Perez, C., & Yelinek, J. (2019). Emotions in storybooks: A comparison of storybooks that represent ethnic and racial groups in the United States. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000185

Book:

DeYoung, P. A. (2003). Relational psychotherapy: A primer. Brunner-Routledge.

Erskine, R. G., Moursund, J. P., & Trautmann, R. L. (1999). Beyond empathy: A therapy of contact-in-relationship. Taylor & Francis.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1945)

Rowan, J., & Jacobs, M. (2002). The therapist’s use of self.  Open University Press.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.

de Beauvoir, S. (1989). The second sex. (H. M. Parshley, Trans.).  Vintage Books. (Originally published 1949)

Brown, L. S. (2018). Feminist therapy (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000092-000

 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Chapter:

Wertz, F. J. (1985). Methods and findings in an empirical analysis of "being criminally victimized". In A. Giorgi (Ed.), Phenomenology and psychological research (pp. 155-216). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2018). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). (pp. 818-838).  Sage Publications.

Wertz, F. J. (1985). Methods and findings in an empirical analysis of "being criminally victimized". In A. Giorgi (Ed.), Phenomenology and psychological research (pp. 155-216). Duquesne University Press.

Edited book:

Giorgi, A. (Ed.), Phenomenology and psychological research (pp. 155-216). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Travis, C. B., White, J. W., Cook, S. L., & Wyche, K. F. (Eds.). (2018). APA handbook of the psychology of women: Vol. 2. Perspectives on women’s private and public lives. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000060-000

Translated book:

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.).  Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1945)

Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man. (R.G. Smith, Trans.). The Macmillan. (Original essays written 1925-38 and published 1947)

Webpage:

Victoria Transcultural Mental Health (2017). Working with Interpreters: A resource for service providers engaging with interpreters in transcultural situations. Retrieved from http://www.vtmh-workingwithinterpreters.online/

Newspaper article:

Tóibín, C. (2016, January 22). How I wrote Nora Webster. The Guardian, Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/22/guardian-book-colm-toibin-how-i-wrote-nora-webster/

Dissertation:

Zambrano-Vazquez, L. (2016). The interaction of state and trait worry on response monitoring in those with worry and obsessive-compulsive symptoms [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona]. UA Campus Repository. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/620615

Harris, L. (2014). Instructional leadership perceptions and practices of elementary school leaders [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Virginia.

 

Remember the following 5 'Golden Rules' for academic writing:

1) Be selective and focused - If you are writing an article based on your Masters or Doctoral thesis, avoid trying to report on the whole piece of work. Instead, try to construct an article on particular aspects of interest. For instance, you might focus selectively on three key themes. Remember you can always write other articles!

2) Find an interesting 'hook' and try to capture the reader's interest - What would readers of articles in this particular journal be interested in?  Write for the reader almost as if you were talking with them. Will you be suggesting something which will help their practice? Is there some particular problem or debate which your research taps into? Use that to set up the rationale for your article.  

3) Write for the readership of the particular journal you're aiming to submit to - The readership determines both the level and type of content wanted.  For our journal, we are interested in a practice orientation and it is important somewhere in your article to discuss the relevance of the research for therapists. Also, be aware that many of our readers do not have an academic background and English may not be their first language, so writing clearly becomes even more important. Aim for readability and avoid too much jargon and acronyms/abbreviations.

4) Follow the journal guidelines precisely - Instructions are given for submission procedures including how to lay out the article, the use of APA system of referencing etc. If you're in doubt or unclear, please feel free to contact the Editor to discuss any questions.

5)  Work on your writing style and expression - Try to avoid boring, over-jargonised writing and, instead, try to write in more lively ways.  The use of metaphors/imagery can help, for example.  It can also help to check out those articles which you have found interesting and readable as opposed to those which are dry, dull and dreary. How did the author achieve making their article interesting?  And, remember, that it always helps to have someone else edit your final draft.

[NB When English is not your first language -  Being an European journal, we are acutely aware of the challenges for authors publishing in English language journals whose English is not their first language. If this is the case for you, we strongly recommend that you have your article professionally edited and we can advise on how to go about doing this. As we are an online journal, note that we offer the space to publish any abstracts and appendices in your own language (in addition to the English translations) - of course, the quality of this material and any errors it contains will be your responsibility.]

 

Review Process

First Submit Your Article - You should upload both a named copy and a blind copy (which is clearly labelled 'blind' and does not have your name on it (or you give consent to your identity being known). The Editor (or Co-Editor) will then send the article to appropriate members of the review panel for a blind review (where possible) by two or three reviewers. (In other words, where possible, a double-blind review process is normally undertaken where author and reviewer names are hidden).

The speed with which we can turn around an article is entirely dependent on the responsiveness of our reviewers. While we aim to get authors feedback comments within 6 weeks, it can take a couple of months or more. When review comments have been sent back, the Editor will return these review comments to you (anonymously). Comments will aim to offer supportive guidance and suggesting relevant edits if publication is recommended (without changes or with minor or major edits requested).

Decisions to publish will be based on the paper’s relevance, quality, originality, interest and clarity given the remit and readership of the journal.  Reviewers will consider if the research methodology adopted is appropriate and whether the author/s demonstrate sufficient critical thinking, rigour, trustworthiness, integrity, and reflexivity. They might also comment on the clarity of the writing and/or suggest further attention is paid to ensure APA referencing guidelines have been consistently followed.

Peer-reviewed journals rely on the support they receive from the scholarly/professional community. Journals like our European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy would not be able to function without the support, dedication and conscientiousness those who share their time and expertise to act as reviewers for submitted manuscripts. We are grateful for the support received and thank both peer reviewers and members of the Editorial Board for contributing and ensuring the quality of submissions.  

 

Production process

Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the Editor will engage in further rounds of editing and will send edit suggestions to the author.  In addition to responding to these edits, the author should suggest around 5 key words and supply a brief biography of all the authors (including relevant affiliations, websites, ORCiD, social media handles) of approximately 50-100 words (see the end of articles titled: 'About the Author').

When the manuscript is complete, the article is formatted and these proofs are once more returned to the author for review and any further corrections.  Once the manuscript has been finally accepted and is in production, the author can cite the paper as being (In Press). 

 

Publication Ethics

The European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy (EJQRP) aims to be an accessible forum that advances the theory and practice of therapy and promotes practitioner orientated research.  In seeking to celebrate the qualitative values of openness, inclusiveness, creativity, and respect for diversity, EJQRP welcomes contributions from diverse methodological and cultural perspectives.

Manuscripts will be accepted/rejected based on their quality, interest, readability, and suitability for readers. Papers submitted to the EJQRP will be reviewed by appropriate Editorial Board members or other relevant peer reviewers. The Editor/Co-Editors will decide which reviewers are most appropriate when sending particular manuscripts out for review.  Blind copies of manuscripts will be sent to reviewers whenever possible and reviewer comments will remain anonymous to ensure a fair, double-blind review process. 

The Journal Editor (and possibly a selected Co-Editor) is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It is expected that the EJQRP operates within COPE guidelines embracing relevant ethical/legal frameworks. 

An Editor (and Co-Editors where relevant) will:

1. Follow COPE core practices and guidelines.
2. Ensure EJQRP maintains a reputation for ethical standards and fair/supportive processes and that authors/reviewers or Board members are able to raise any points of concern about journal processes or specific articles.
3. Ensure that Editorials are balanced and informative rather than being polemical.
4. Ensure articles submitted to the journal demonstrate methodological integrity and meet appropriate professional ethical standards.
5. Be even-handed, timely, consistent, and fair in any editorial decision-making ensuring manuscripts are judged on their merit without regard to sex, gender, race, ethnicity, author seniority or affiliation.
6. Try to ensure all authors and reviews are given encouragement and constructive advice where relevant.
7. Ensure, as far as possible, that intellectual property is maintained and that papers meet ethical standards on authorship and referencing including being alert to potential abuses re: citation manipulation.
8. Ensure authors declare any competing interests and sources of funding.
9. Maintain confidentiality of author/reviewer identity and that of any other person involved in the process of investigating an ethical query.
10. Try to provide a positive experience for all authors/reviewers contributing to the journal.
11. Ensure data protection regulations (GDPR) are complied with. The names and email addresses supplied to the Journal will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of EJQRP and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party without permission.
12. Ensure Co-Editors take responsibility for the peer review process and editorial decisions for any papers (other than the Editorials) authored by the Editor or where competing interests may be involved.
13. As EJQRP is an online journal, corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies can be promptly offered and, where relevant/necessary, and corrected copies of the article can be uploaded replacing the incorrect version.