Reviewers are the gatekeepers of knowledge dissemination and promote the scientific validity of research. However, the literature indicates that authors often receive questionable feedback on qualitative manuscripts. This qualitative descriptive study sought to explore the preparedness and experiences of reviewers of psychology journals. Informants were a purposive sample of 27 psychology journal reviewers. They completed open-ended questions on their preparation and experiences reviewing qualitative manuscripts submitted to journals and the recommendations they would share with authors. Thematic analysis indicated preparedness for self-perceptions of novice, emerging versus expert, and review experiences to suggest trivialisation versus invitation and acceptance. For publication success, reviewers perceived a need for qualitative research authors to strengthen their introduction sections, making the study case and method section demonstrate familiarity with their specific qualitative research approach. These findings also suggest a need for continuous qualitative methodology education and reviewer vetting to strengthen qualitative manuscript reviews by psychology journals for scholarly equity and inclusiveness.

审稿人是知识传播的守门人，促进研究的科学有效性。然而，文献表明作者经常收到关于定性手稿的有问题的反馈。这项定性描述性研究旨在探讨心理学期刊审稿人的准备情况和经验。受访者是 27 名心理学期刊审稿人的有目的样本。他们完成了关于他们的准备工作和审查提交给期刊的定性手稿的经验以及他们将与作者分享的建议的开放式问题。主题分析表明，对新手、新兴与专家的自我认知做好了准备，并回顾经验以建议琐碎与邀请和接受。为了出版成功，审稿人认为定性研究作者需要加强他们的引言部分，使研究案例和方法部分表现出对其特定定性研究方法的熟悉程度。这些发现还表明，需要进行持续的定性方法教育和审稿人审查，以加强心理学期刊的定性稿件审查，以实现学术公平和包容性。