Psychology, Human Resources, I/O psychology, Occupational health psychology

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Psihologia Resurselor Umane (Psychology of Human Resources Journal)is the official journal of the Association of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (APIO). PRU is devoted to publishing original investigations that contribute to an understanding of situational and individual challenges within an organizational context and that bring forth new knowledge in the field. The journal publishes primarily empirical articles, and also welcomes methodological and theoretical articles on a broad range of topics covered by Organizational, Industrial, Work, Personnel and Occupational Health Psychology.

Audience includes scholars, educators, managers, HR professionals, organizational consultants, practitioners in organizational and employee development. This journal is currently abstracted and indexed in the following databases: PsychINFO, Proquest, EBSCO, SCIPIO, Société Française de Psychologie, DOAJ and Copernicus. Examples of topics covered in this journal are: job demands and resources, work stress, employee well-being, employee, positive and negative work behaviors, work-family conflict, personality in work contexts, leadership, job attitudes, HR practices, work motivation, personal resources, team effectiveness, employee performance, methods in I/O psychology.

 

Section Policies

Editorial

In this section will be published articles by members of the editorial team (introductions, advertising, notifications etc.)

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Research articles

Section for original articles, mainly from research in the industrial and organizational psychology, and which satisfy the methodological and scientific requirmentes in the field

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Knowledges management

Articles for the intelligence and knowledges managemet

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Human resources management in practice

Articles for the practical aspects of human resources management

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Legislation in psychology

Articles and information on legislation in the field of psychology

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Figures of psychologists

Articles related to some great personalities in the field of psychology

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Book reviews

Reviews and bibliographical notes of literature

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Ergonomics

Articles for ergonomics and workplace optimization

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Advertising psychology

Articles and studies for advertising psychology

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Interviews

Interviews with personalities from the human resources management field

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

In Memoriam

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Scientific events

Overview of conferences, symposium and other scientific meetings

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Military psychology

Section for original articles, mainly from research in the military psychology, and which satisfy the methodological and scientific requirmentes in the field

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Methodology

Section for original articles, mainly from research methodology, and which satisfy the methodological and scientific requirmentes in the field

Editors
  • Andreea Butucescu
  • Cristian Opariuc-Dan
  • Coralia Sulea
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Short description

In the review process, the editor revises the submitted manuscripts and if they are considered to be suitable for publication they are sent further to two independent reviewers for double blind peer review. The papers considered unsuitable may be rejected by the editor without having gone through the peer review process.

The reviewers

The reviewers are independent experts (academic or professional researchers) within the field of I/O psychology and related areas, familiar with the research literature, who have previously published papers.

The review process and timelines

Following the recommendations made by the reviewers and consultation with members of the Editorial Board, the Editor decides whether the paper should be accepted as such, revised or rejected. For an optimal revision process, there is the expectation to have reviews completed within one month of their request, so that the paper gets back to the author in about 45 days. However, reviewing time may vary, depending on how busy the reviewers are and on the challenge to find good specialists for certain narrower subject areas. The peer review should aim to validate whether the submitted paper is original work and is not currently submitted to another journal, totally or partially; that the ethical standards are respected; that the article is relevant for the journal’s aims; that the paper presents original findings; and that the article has a thorough theoretical fundament and is methodologically sound. Importantly, if the reviewer suspects the manuscript is authored by someone who could be a current collaborator, a colleague, or any situation where a conflict of interest is suspected, this should be communicated to the Editor for a manuscript reassignment. This is also the case when the assigned article is not within the expertise of the reviewer.

Importantly, if the reviewer suspects the manuscript is authored by someone who could be a current collaborator, a colleague, or any situation where a conflict of interest is suspected, this should be communicated to the Editor for a manuscript reassignment. This is also the case when the assigned article is not within the expertise of the reviewer.

It is recommended that reviews emphasize the strengths and the relevance of the paper, the significance to the field of I/O psychology and related areas, offer constructive feedback on how to improve the quality of the manuscript in each part: conceptual analysis and literature review, methodology and data analysis, interpretation of findings, relevance for practice and future research. Moreover, the review process should offer feedback and recommendations on the clarity and coherence of the paper, and also about the suitability of the title, abstract and length of the paper. Please consider the following questions for each main part of the manuscript:

Originality

Does the research bring novelty in the field? Does the study address an important research question or relevant concern within the practice area?

Title

Does it evidently describe the paper?

Abstract

Does the abstract state clearly the purpose of the research, present accurately the key findings and implications for I/O psychology and related areas?

Background

Does the author state clearly what s(he) aimed to achieve? Does s(he) describe accurately the problem being examined? Is the relevant research in the field properly summarized and connected to the author’s objectives to extend it or to challenge it? Do the hypotheses emerge in a logical manner out of the background information presented? Is there justified information about the methodology which will be employed?

Method

Does the author provide appropriate detail about the sample and its adequacy for addressing the study question? What is the size of the sample, what were the procedures for recruiting participants? Are the constructs adequately operationalized and were appropriate measures used? Are the psychometric properties described properly? Was the research conducted according to ethical standards? Are there any conclusions about the generalizability of the findings?

Results

Are the findings presented in a manner which is consistent with the research’s objectives and hypotheses? Does the author clearly explain in words what did they find in their research? Are appropriate graphs and tables provided? Is the data analysis correct?

Discussion

Does the discussion integrate the findings with relevant theory and previous research? Is it adequately linked to previous sections of the article? Are the practical and statistical significance of the data analyzed? Are appropriate explanations provided for the findings? Are the contributions of the research to the literature clearly presented? Are the limitations explained? What about implications for theory, research and practice?

Ethics

Is there any suspicion of fraud or plagiarism? Are there any concerns about the ethical standards of the conducted research? Please discuss these issues with the Editor. The reviewers need to treat manuscripts as confidential documents, not shared outside the editorial process and without the authorization of the editor. Moreover, the manuscripts must not be used in the reviewer’s own research unless there is a written consent of the author. Any ideas or information from the manuscripts mustn’t be used for any personal advantage.

Reviewers must protect their identity and refrain from any clues in their review that might reveal their identity when communicated to the author.

Recommendation for the messages communicated to the author

Please justify all criticism in a specific manner. Be specific with the places within the paper where you would like changes to occur. The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details. Provide reference to materials which can help the author improve their manuscript.

The reviewer’s recommendation

When you make a recommendation regarding an article, please choose the categories for classifying the article:

  • Reject (please provide explanations)
  • Accept without revision (please provide arguments)
  • Minor revision (please provide arguments)
  • Major revision (please provide arguments)

The editor will analyze the reviewers’ comments and decide to accept or reject a manuscript. If needed, the editor may ask for an additional opinion from another reviewer or may ask the author to revise the paper prior to making a final decision.

Additional important questions

Does the author respect the journal’s guidelines for authors? Is the paper presented in the requested format? Is the article poorly written? Are there grammatical errors or other language issues? Are the references presented correctly?

Read more:
http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/99/Peer-review_The-nuts-and-bolts.pdf

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010) 6th edition

http://www.apastyle.org/
 

Open Access Policy

As part of APIO’s mission to disseminate and communicate knowledge in the Work and Organisational Psychology sciences, APIO strongly supports open access to its journal content and continues to seek ways to make that content available while maintaining the quality of the journals. Any article published in each number of the Psihologia Resurselor Umane can be in open access, and all the journal's articles are freely available to the public through our website. Psihologia Resurselor Umane’s philosophy is to make all articles freely available to the public via the APIO website. Individual authors are also free to post PDF copies of their work published in Psihologia Resurselor Umane on their individual or institutional websites. It is not necessary to request permission from Psihologia Resurselor Umane so long as such postings are not used for commercial purposes.

If you have comments or suggestions on Psihologia Resurselor Umane’s open access policy, please contact the Editorial Board (office@apio.ro), which is charged with tracking developments in open access publishing.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Ethical Statement

The Psihologia Resurselor Umane Journal is committed to the highest ethical and quality standards acknowledged by the academic community in the publishing of scientific works. The Editors of PRU are committed to respect these ethical standards of publication and take all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their papers for publication to PRU as original articles attest that the submitted work represents the contribution of the indicated authors and that they have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works.

Authors must submit accurate information in sufficient detail, as well in form of sufficient and convincing explanation about the source of the data, as well as in form of objective and rigorous conclusions and discussion on these data. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is also unacceptable. Before starting the review process, each article will be checked for plagiarism, using Turnitin or Grammarly. 

Peer reviewers are experts chosen by the editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and of identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Regular reviewers selected for the journal are required to meet minimum standards regarding their background in original research, publication of papers, formal training, and previous critical appraisal of manuscripts. Peer reviewers are experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles they review and are only selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editors (or action editors) of PRU.

The editors (and action editors) of PRU are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editors (and action editors) may confer with other editors or reviewers in reaching this decision. The editors are assisted in taking editorial decisions by peer reviews. The peer reviews thus help the editor in his/her decision and also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviews will be conducted objectively, in a double-blind review procedure. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.To this end, they must use a standardized form to help them evaluate manuscripts. If you wish to download a review form, click here.The names of the reviewers will not be disclosed.

Following the reviewing process, a manuscript will be included in one of the following categories: Rejected, Rejected with encouragement, Invitation to resubmit with high risk, Invitation to resubmit with low risk and Accepted. For more details on what each category entails please check out our review form.

The PRU journal editors have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the material they publish. The PRU journal encourages authors and readers to inform them if they discover errors in published work.
Editors will publish corrections if errors are discovered which could affect the interpretation of data or the information presented in an article. Corrections arising from errors within an article (by authors or journal) should be distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern relating to misconduct.

Editors, authors, and peer reviewers have a responsibility to disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review data objectively. These include relevant financial (for example consultancies, services fees), personal, political, intellectual, or religious interests.