<p>Dear authors<br><br>Firstly, we are thankful for the submission of the article "Male Homosexuality and Lesbianism in the Academic Production of Psychology: A Systematic Bibliographic Review Between 2012-2016" to Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology .</p>
<p><br>Secondly, as you can see below, reviewers asked for changes in the manuscript in order to keep it in the editorial process. We hope that these comments are clear and of some use to you in developing the ms.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The deadline to make these changes are due . Along with the revision, please include a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point raised in an attached letter.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Rodrigo Miranda</p>
<p>Associate Editor - Revista Interamericana de Psicología</p>
<p><br><br><br></p>
<p><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer B:<br>Recommendation: Decline Submission<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Satisfactory</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<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; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>The manuscript "Male Homosexuality and Lesbianism in the Academic Production of Psychology: A Systematic Bibliographic Review Between 2012-2016," which aims to identify the academic production of psychology on homosexuality and lesbianism in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal and to point out the problem addressing the issue of homosexuality without questioning heteronormativity, which according to the authors may incur in the perpetuation of stigmas and a pathologizing view of homosexuality.<br>The author (s) deals with a topic of great social relevance and of high interest to psychology. Besides, when doing this through a systematic search in the databases without considering the existing production on heterosexuality (which did not enter the search strategy) the author (s) make the same mistake that indicates to exist in other papers included in the review.<br>The time limitation imposed by the author (s) in the search (between 2012 and 2016) lacks a plausible explanation for its application; such a time limitation isn't advisable in literature reviews, given that the art's state can have changed significantly in 4 years, especially considering that we are in 2020.<br>Some guidelines are available with the manuscript in case the author (s) wishes to consider it.</blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Reject:</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer C:<br>Recommendation: Revisions Required<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Excellent</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Excellent</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Excellent</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Excellent</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Excellent</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<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; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote><br>O estudo consiste numa revisão de literatura sobre a produção de artigos acadêmicos a respeito da temática da homossexualidade masculina e feminina na Espanha, Portugal, América Latina e Caribe entre os anos 2012 e 2016, o que reverteu 420 artigos selecionados.<br>Artigo está bem redigido e permite uma boa experiência de leitura e compreensão. O estudo oferece uma contribuição significativa para a Psicologia e se enquadra no escopo da Revista Interamericana de Psicología.<br>As normas APA foram convenientemente seguidas.<br>Há bem poucos erros de ortografia ou de informações (como, por exemplo, a respeito dos países hispanófonos), que são facilmente corrigíveis.<br>Há dois aspectos conceituais fundamentais que necessitam ser revistos e englobam a totalidade do texto: o termo “lesbianismo” e América Latina. O primeiro, porque se restringe a uma questão identitária e costuma ser eivado de preconceitos na esfera linguística. O segundo porque não inclui, necessariamente, países do Caribe que aparecem na seleção de artigos, como Jamaica, Porto Rico e Trindade e Tobago. A questão é mais bem pontuada no arquivo a ser anexado, no qual consta uma sugestão para resolver tais problemas.<br><br>* * *<br><br>El estudio consiste en una revisión de la literatura sobre la producción de artículos académicos sobre el tema de la homosexualidad masculina y femenina en España, Portugal, América Latina y el Caribe entre los años 2012 y 2016, que revirtió 420 artículos seleccionados.<br>El artículo está bien escrito y permite una buena experiencia de lectura y comprensión. El estudio ofrece una contribución significativa a la Psicología y cae dentro del alcance de la Revista Interamericana de Psicología.<br>Se siguieron los estándares APA.<br>Hay muy pocos errores de ortografía o información (como, por ejemplo, sobre países de habla hispana), que se corrigen fácilmente.<br>Hay dos aspectos conceptuales fundamentales que deben revisarse y abarcar todo el texto: el término "lesbianismo" y América Latina. El primero, porque está restringido a un problema de identidad y generalmente está lleno de prejuicios en la esfera lingüística. El segundo porque no incluye necesariamente a los países del Caribe que aparecen en la selección de artículos, como Jamaica, Puerto Rico y Trinidad y Tobago. La cuestión se aborda mejor en el archivo que se adjuntará, con una sugerencia para resolver dichos problemas.</blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Publish pending minor revisions:</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer D:<br>Recommendation: Revisions Required<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Very Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Very Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Very Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Very Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Very Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<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; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>Very relevant topic and discussion! Some suggestions: (i) English language review (abstract); (ii) the numbers of América Latina (Tabla 3) totalize 295 (not 289), and I did not realize why; (iii) similar situation occurs with Tabla 4 (total = 285); (iv) in Tabla 7, I suppose that many articles have more than 1 "categoría", but it could be explicit in the text; (v) still in Tabla 7, "Salud" has 112 articles, but in the text it is mentioned the total of 130, so I suggest to explain why; (vi) in "La preocupación por la salud se centra principalmente en el HIV (61), la salud en general (22), las prácticas sexuales como sexo de alto riesgo (18), y/u otras ITS (12 ).", the total is 113, not 112 as cited in Tabla 7; (vii) finally, spell check is also suggested.</blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Publish pending minor revisions:</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br></p><br/><p>The following message is being delivered on behalf of Revista Interamericana de Psicología/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</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>