Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Novel Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (JNPR) depends on its reviewers to maintain the integrity, rigor, and quality of its publications. These guidelines outline expectations for reviewers and provide practical advice on how to deliver fair, constructive, and timely reviews. JNPR follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adheres to ICMJE and OASPA standards.

Role of Reviewers

  • Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased assessments of manuscripts.
  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in clarity, methodology, and presentation.
  • Ensure that research is ethical, reproducible, and appropriately cited.
  • Support editors in making informed decisions while respecting author dignity and confidentiality.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal benefit. Breaches of confidentiality may result in removal from the reviewer pool.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within 2–3 weeks of invitation acceptance. If unable to complete on time, reviewers should decline promptly or request an extension.

Conflict of Interest

  • Reviewers must disclose any financial, academic, or personal conflicts of interest.
  • If a conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation.
  • Examples include reviewing work by collaborators, competitors, or colleagues at the same institution.

Constructive Feedback

Review comments should be respectful, specific, and actionable. Reviewers should highlight:

  • Novelty and significance of the work.
  • Soundness of methodology and data analysis.
  • Clarity and organization of writing.
  • Compliance with ethical standards.
“The goal of peer review is not only to critique but to improve the quality and impact of research.”

What Reviewers Should Look For

  • Is the research question clearly defined?
  • Is the methodology appropriate and well-described?
  • Are the results clearly presented and supported by data?
  • Is the discussion balanced and well-referenced?
  • Are ethical considerations (e.g., IRB approval, informed consent) addressed?
  • Does the manuscript fit the scope of JNPR?

Reviewer Report Structure

Reviewer reports should typically include:

  • Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript.
  • Major Issues: Substantive concerns with design, ethics, or interpretation.
  • Minor Issues: Language, formatting, references, or figure presentation.
  • Recommendation: Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Reviewer Recognition

JNPR acknowledges the contributions of reviewers through:

  • Optional reviewer recognition on the journal website (with consent).
  • Reviewer certificates upon request.
  • Eligibility for editorial board invitations based on consistent quality reviews.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if I suspect plagiarism?

Notify the editor immediately with details. Do not contact the authors directly.

Can I suggest additional references?

Yes, but recommendations must be relevant and not self-serving. Avoid coercive citation practices.

What if I am not an expert in all aspects of the paper?

That is acceptable. Provide feedback on areas within your expertise and indicate limitations to the editor.

Do I need to edit the manuscript language?

Language editing is not required. However, reviewers should highlight if poor language affects scientific clarity.