<p>Dear &nbsp;Alicia Giaroli,</p>
<p>Thank you very much for your submission for consideration in our special issue in <em>Revista Interamericana de Psicología</em>/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, "COVID 19: PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH AND TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE IN SOCIAL ISOLATION".</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I have now received evaluations from the reviewers. All of the reviewers felt that the manuscript covered an important topic that could make a significant contribution to the literature. One reviewers recommended acceptance with minor revisions and one reviewer recommended resubmission with modifications. After independently reviewing the paper, I also believe there are concerns that have been raised which do merit further attention. &nbsp;I particularly agree with the need for transitions and clarity in much of the writing, including clarification of the aim of the paper, and further elaboration on the “empirical” issue brought up by one reviewer. As such I would like to request a revision of your manuscript attending to the areas outlined by the reviewers. One reviewer has also generously given you suggestions in comment form on the Word document of the manuscript (attached). Please note, upon receipt of your revision, the manuscript will be sent out for further review.<br><br></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I hope you will accept my invitation to resubmit and look forward to seeing your revised manuscript. You have until July 30 to resubmit, should you decide to do so.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Melissa L. Morgan, Ph.D.</p>
<p>Associate Editor</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer A:<br><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<blockquote>Edits and comments are contained in the manuscript, Certain paragraphs/sections are clearly stated. Too many are unclear and ramble. Overall the paper, from start to finish, is poorly organized. The main point that the authors seek to make is unclear, Need to have a more unifying approach from start to finish. Need better transitions from paragraph to paragraph, section to section. the conclusion is weak. Fails to provide a good rationale for future work in their area of interest.</blockquote>
<p><br><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer B:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote>Regarding the content<br><br>The article presents a review of some psychological approaches used in emergency contexts and the possible consequences for a pandemic situation such as the one that produced the COVID-19. The importance of empirically based interventions and the need to coordinate established interventions with other disciplinary fields, such as epidemiology, is highlighted. The article coordinates classical studies with recent research and shows some valuable responses to address some of the most urgent demands. In this sense, it contributes to raise the debate about professional and institutional decisions, especially those related to the area of mental health. <br>The article introduces the relevance of adopting a multisystemic approach, settled on evidence-based practices. It is a suggestive idea, although this notion only reappears in the conclusions, but as a sum of strategies. Is it the same? Perhaps, it can be clarified.<br>With regard to the emphasis on the use of "evidence-based" interventions, the notion of evidence seems at times to be as lax as imprecise. Although "evidence" is presented as a desirable value, it seems to be a clause that is confused with pragmatic notions such as efficacy, effectiveness or decision making process; or with epistemic notions such as objectivity, corroboration, validation or level of certainty. On the other hand, although it is pointed out that the best evidence comes from different levels of certainty (which is illustrated in figure 1), in several passages "the evidence" is confused with empirical support, something that in part contradicts a large part of the scientific activity that is deductive, logical-mathematical or supported by modeling. Even if meta-analysis is partially supported by empirical data, it is strange that other fundamental processes leading to the production of valid conclusions are reduced to the "empirical" level. Either all evidence is "empirical" (which is highly questionable) or the evidence is not only and always empirically supported. Finally, at some moments it seems that "evidence" is nothing more than a formula that tries to capture the production of scientific knowledge in all its complexity. In this sense, it would be good if the article to clarify what it means by "evidence", or at least warn cautiously about all the problems that this entails, avoiding treating it as a transparent notion (among other reasons, to avoid falling into an internal contradiction, since this article presents various conclusions of which no empirical evidence is mentioned).<br>With regard to the reference to "psychotherapy" (to certain uses in psychotherapy or to the benefits for "psychotherapy"...), there are no clear theoretical references about the type of psychotherapy it refers to or the degree of generalization to which these considerations can be made. It is evident that the strategy of the article is to address a broad field of "psy " practice.However, some of the suggestions about psychotherapy lack rigorous epistemological analysis and their generalization without foundation or evidence could be inadequate.<br>Likewise, conclusions such as "We would have techniques and resources to look for adaptive interpretations of the distorted thinking", seem to have a partial degree of generality and, in some cases, could be contradictory with the objectives and strategies of some psychotherapies.<br><br>Formal aspects<br><br>-Add the missing end points in some paragraphs. <br>-Avoid the period before a parenthesis<br>-Use m dash (—) as a line for marginal clarifications (instead of --)<br>-Use the "&amp;" sign instead of "y" to list authors<br>-Check for missing or extra space between words and signs<br>On the reference list:<br>-Change "References" to "References".<br>-Always use a comma before the "&amp;" sign.<br>-Review the use of italics in accordance with APA, for book titles and journal names<br>-It is suggested to use the formula "least developed countries" (officially adopted by the UN) instead of "underdeveloped countries". Anyway, considering that the official list of American countries that fall into that category includes only one nation (Haiti), I am not sure if the author is referring to that group (https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/ldc_list.pdf).</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><br/><p>The following message is being delivered on behalf of Interamerican Journal of Psychology. _____________________________________________________________</p>
<div>
<div id="Zm-_Id_-Sgn" data-zbluepencil-ignore="true">
<div><strong><span class="size">Dr. Fernando Andres Polanco</span></strong></div>
<div><em>Editor Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology</em></div>
<div><a href="mailto:fernando.polanco@sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fernando.polanco@sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología</div>
<div>Web:&nbsp;<a href="http://sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/sipsych" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a> &nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.instagram.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/SIPChannel2013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a></div>
</div>
</div>