Peer Reviewed Policies

International Journal of Physiotherapy follows the Peer Review Guidelines according to,

  1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
  2. ICMJE Recommendations
  3. Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals
  4. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

Peer Reviewed Policies

  1. We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers in our Journal. To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous review process. Characteristics of the peer review process are as follows:
  2. Simultaneous submissions of the same manuscript to different journals will not be considered.
  3. Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
  4. Papers will be refereed by at least two experts as suggested by the editorial board.In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when editors decide further review is required.
  5. All publication decisions are made by the journals. Editors-in-Chief on the basis of the referees' reports. Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
  6. All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. We expect our Board of Reviewing Editors and reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential material as well.
  7. Editors and reviewers involved throughout the review process should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and remove oneself from cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through a peer review must not be used for competitive gain.
  8. Our peer review process is confidential and identities of reviewers cannot be revealed.

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:

  1. Accepted
  2. Accepted after minor revision
  3. Rejected

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.