Peer Review Process

The Journal of Novel Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (JNPR) ensures that every manuscript undergoes a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process to uphold scientific quality and integrity. This process follows international best practices established by COPE, ICMJE, and OASPA.

Overview of Peer Review

  • JNPR operates a double-blind peer review system where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous.
  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
  • Final acceptance decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer feedback and editorial assessment.

Stages of Peer Review

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: Manuscripts are checked for scope, formatting, and plagiarism before review.
  2. Reviewer Assignment: Qualified experts are invited to review based on subject relevance.
  3. Review Process: Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, ethics, clarity, and relevance.
  4. Decision Recommendation: Reviewers recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection.
  5. Editorial Decision: Editors synthesize feedback and issue a decision.
  6. Revision and Resubmission: Authors revise and resubmit based on reviewer comments.
  7. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
  8. Production: Accepted manuscripts move to copyediting, typesetting, and publication.

Reviewer Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess:

  • Originality and novelty of the work.
  • Clarity of objectives and hypotheses.
  • Soundness of research design and methodology.
  • Relevance of results to the field of physiotherapy and rehabilitation.
  • Ethical compliance, including IRB approval and informed consent where required.
  • Appropriate referencing of prior work.

Decision Categories

After peer review, manuscripts are classified as:

  • Accept: Ready for publication with minimal changes.
  • Minor Revision: Requires small adjustments before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Substantial modifications required; re-review may be needed.
  • Reject: Manuscript not suitable for publication in JNPR.

Timelines

JNPR strives to ensure:

  • Initial editorial decision within 7 days of submission.
  • Reviewer feedback within 2–3 weeks.
  • Final decision typically within 4–6 weeks of submission.

Ethical Oversight

Reviewers and editors must report suspected misconduct such as plagiarism, falsified data, or unethical practices. Allegations are handled confidentially following COPE guidelines.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed rebuttal. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editor or advisory board member.

Transparency and Accountability

All peer review communications are managed via the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to ensure documentation and accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is JNPR’s peer review blinded?

Yes. JNPR uses a double-blind system to ensure fairness and reduce bias.

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes. Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editor has the final authority in selecting reviewers.

What if reviewers disagree?

If reviewer recommendations conflict, the editor may consult a third reviewer or make an independent judgment.

How long does the entire review process take?

On average, 4–6 weeks, though complex cases may take longer.

“Peer review at JNPR is designed to maintain the highest scientific standards while supporting authors with constructive feedback.”