Reviewer's Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. At the Journal of Novel Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (JNPR), reviewers are entrusted with responsibilities that ensure manuscripts are evaluated fairly, ethically, and constructively. This section outlines the duties of reviewers in alignment with COPE Ethical Guidelines, ICMJE standards, and OASPA best practices.

Core Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Provide unbiased, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations of assigned manuscripts.
  • Respect confidentiality by treating all manuscripts as privileged documents.
  • Deliver reviews within the agreed timeframe, usually within 2–3 weeks.
  • Assess scientific merit, originality, relevance, and ethical compliance of manuscripts.
  • Offer actionable suggestions for improving clarity, methodology, and presentation.

Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on intellectual content without discrimination of gender, race, institutional affiliation, or nationality. Criticism should be objective and focused on scholarly content rather than personal opinions.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished data from manuscripts for personal research or benefit. Breach of confidentiality is considered misconduct and may result in permanent removal from the reviewer pool.

Conflicts of Interest

  • Reviewers should decline review invitations if they have conflicts (financial, institutional, or personal).
  • Examples of conflicts include reviewing work of close collaborators or competitors.
  • All conflicts must be declared to the editor immediately.

Ethical Oversight

Reviewers must alert editors if they suspect:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
  • Fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data.
  • Unethical research involving humans or animals.

Suspicions should be reported confidentially to the editor, not to the authors directly.

Review Content

Effective reviewer reports generally include:

  • A brief summary of the manuscript.
  • Major issues (methodological flaws, ethical concerns, interpretation gaps).
  • Minor issues (language, references, formatting errors).
  • A clear recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
“A reviewer’s role is not only to critique but to mentor, guiding authors toward higher-quality scholarship.”

Timeliness

Reviewers must meet deadlines. If unable to complete a review, they should inform the editor promptly to avoid delays in the editorial process.

Respectful Communication

Review comments should be respectful, constructive, and free from offensive or discriminatory language. Feedback must aim to improve the manuscript and encourage authors, especially early-career researchers.

Reviewer Recognition

JNPR acknowledges reviewers by:

  • Offering reviewer certificates upon request.
  • Providing annual recognition of active reviewers.
  • Considering frequent, high-quality reviewers for editorial board roles.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should I do if I don’t have expertise in all aspects of a paper?

Provide feedback on areas where you are competent and inform the editor of your limitations.

Can I suggest citations?

Yes, but recommendations must be relevant and not intended to increase self-citations. Coercive citation practices are prohibited.

What if I suspect plagiarism?

Report suspicions confidentially to the editor, providing details or evidence if possible.

Can I decline a review request?

Yes. Reviewers should decline if they lack expertise, time, or have a conflict of interest.