Review of "Physiological psychology" by Vladimir E. Trajkovski

Andrea Ivanovska 

Macedonian Scientific Society for Autism

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2653-2503
https://doi.org/10.33700/jhrs.2.3.98

ABSTRACT

“Physiological psychology” authored by Prof. Dr. Vladimir E. Trajkovski, represents a pivotal contribution to the field of physiological psychology. The Publisher is Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje and it was published on September 29th in Skopje. This is first edition of the book, which is printed in B5 format with ISBN 978-608-238-235-7.

This textbook, the first in the Macedonian language, elaborately explores the biological bases of behaviour. The book's scope extends beyond mere academic interest, serving as a valuable resource for students and professionals.

This book is a valuable resource for anyone fascinated by the intersection of psychology and physiology, demystifying how our biological mechanisms shape behaviour. It's a great educational resource, particularly for students and professionals in psychology, neuroscience, and similar fields, because of its exhaustive exploration of physiological psychology. From the workings of the sensory systems and the dynamism of motor functions to the neurological and cognitive complexities, the book clarifies human behaviour's roots. This book is a great candidate for readers seeking to enhance their knowledge of physiological psychology.

Full Text Article

Writing the Review

The purpose of the review is to provide the academic and professional editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration, and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication in JHRS. In the interests of complete transparency we do not allow confidential comments for the editors. Please therefore assume that all the comments you make will be transmitted to the authors. The best possible review would answer the following questions: What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

Who would find this paper of interest? Why?

If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient enough potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?

If you intend to provide a marked up copy of your manuscript as part of your review, you can do so by uploading the file to the review form. However, we prefer to have these marked-up files in Word format rather than PDF to ensure that the comments and annotations can be easily forwarded to the author. Please remember to anonymize your comments. 

Review process is double blinded.

Review procedure

Dear Authors,

Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors and Reviewers. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.

If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

• Accept submission (Publish Unaltered)
• Revisions required (Consider after Minor Changes)
• Resubmit for review (Consider after Major Changes)
• Decline submission (Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations: Publish Unaltered, Consider after Minor Changes, Consider after Major Changes, Reject.

If the Editor recommends "Publish Unaltered," the manuscript is accepted for publication.

If the Editor recommends "Consider after Minor Changes," the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the Acknowledgment can be accepted.

If the Editor recommends "Consider after Major Changes," the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation, which can be "Publish Unaltered" or "Consider after Minor Changes" or "Reject."

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.

The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are, and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are. Without the significant contributions made by peer reviewers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.

JHRS Editor-in-chief