Peer Reviewed Policies
International Journal of Physiotherapy follows the Peer Review Guidelines according to,
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
- ICMJE Recommendations
- Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals
- Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
Peer Reviewed Policies
- Authors are requested to prepare the manuscript in good standards and verify the policies of IJPHY before submitting. We stand for critical evaluation, in-depth review and best way of communication of the research articles.
- Once the article is confirmed for publication in our journal, authors should not submit the same article in any other journal, or they should withdraw their articles submitted to another journal. Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
- Two experts will review each article, recommended by the editorial board. If necessary, the article may undergo few more reviews. Timely information about the review process will be communicated with authors when required.
- The journal reserves the right to not accepting the article if it fails to follow the basic criteria of journal’s policy. By referees report the Editors-in-Chief can take a decision and we not IJPY the authors if their article is not accepted for publication.
- Once the manuscript is submitted, it will be treated as confidential documents. Except with the author, no communications regarding the manuscript will be given to other individuals or any publication agencies.
- We will take all the necessary actions to prevent misuse of privileged information or ideas that are obtained through a peer review of submitted articles and will not be used for any competitive gain.
- The privacy and confidentiality of the peer reviewers and their work will be protected.
All published articles in International Journal of Physiotherapy are peered reviewed, and all manuscripts submitted follow the procedure outlined below.
Initial Manuscript Evaluation: All manuscripts submitted for publication in Journal are, firstly, evaluated by the Editorial Board Members. The editors employ double-blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.
Referee Evaluation: After the initial evaluation, the manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two external referees for peer-review. If necessary, the number of referees can be increased by editors. The referees are chosen from a referee board according to their expertise. Referees are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, presentation of results and support for the conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Referees might accept the manuscript, reject the manuscript or might require a revision for style and/or content.
When a revision is required by the referee or referees, the author(s) are to consider the suggestions offered by the referees, and they should be sent back the revised version of a manuscript in one month. Revised manuscripts returned after one month is considered as a new submission, and peer review process is started from the beginning. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
Possible decisions on a manuscript are:
- Accepted after minor revision
If minor revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible within one week.
Final Evaluation: After favorable opinions of referees, the editorial board is made the final evaluation. The articles accepted for publication by the editorial are placed in an issue sequence.
Time of Peer Review Process: The journal aims to complete the all peer review process within seven (7) to eight(8)weeks. This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.