Peer Review Policy & Process

Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research (JHRR)

The Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research (JHRR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical publishing, scientific rigor, and transparency as outlined by COPE, ICMJE, and DOAJ. The journal employs a robust double-blind peer review process and a structured workflow powered by the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to ensure impartiality, quality, and efficiency.

Peer Review Policy

1. Initial Screening

  • Manuscripts undergo a preliminary review by the editorial team to evaluate:
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope.
    • Compliance with submission guidelines and ethical standards (e.g., plagiarism checks using TURNITIN, <20% similarity threshold).
    • Basic quality, including grammar, structure, and adherence to referencing style.
  • Only submissions meeting these criteria proceed to the peer review phase.

2. Selection of Reviewers

  • At least two independent experts are engaged to evaluate each manuscript. Selection is based on:
    • Expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
    • Absence of conflicts of interest, following COPE and ICMJE guidelines.
    • Diversity to ensure broad, unbiased perspectives.
  • Reviewers are required to:
    • Provide objective, constructive, and polite feedback.
    • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
    • Declare conflicts of interest immediately if recognized.
    • Follow ethical guidelines for reviewers as outlined by COPE.

3. Reviewer Instructions

Reviewers assess manuscripts for:

  • Originality and contribution to the field.
  • Methodological rigor and validity of results.
  • Clarity and coherence of presentation.
  • Ethical compliance, including informed consent and data transparency.

Feedback must be:

  • Constructive and specific, addressing strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
  • Submitted within the designated timeframe to avoid delays.

4. Review Process Details

  1. Reviewer Feedback:

    • Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject).

  2. Revisions:

    • Authors address reviewers' comments and resubmit revised manuscripts within the defined timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers.

  3. Final Decision:

    • Based on reviewer recommendations, the editorial team makes the final decision to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. Decisions are promptly communicated to authors.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review and Editorial Oversight

  1. Confidentiality:

    • The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure impartiality throughout the review process.

  2. Editorial Oversight:

    • Editors monitor the process to ensure fairness, address ethical or procedural concerns, and prevent manipulation.

  3. Preventing Manipulation:

    • JHRR employs rigorous safeguards to maintain integrity:
      • Verifies suggested reviewers’ credentials.
      • Avoids reviewers with recent collaborations or conflicts of interest.
      • Detects fraudulent practices using robust tools and checks.

Workflow Before Publication

1. Submission Stage

  • Online Submission: Authors submit manuscripts via the OJS portal, accompanied by metadata, cover letters, and declarations of originality.
  • Initial Screening: Editorial staff checks:
    • Scope alignment.
    • Compliance with submission guidelines.
    • Ethical compliance, including plagiarism checks.
  • Decision to Proceed: Manuscripts meeting these criteria advance to the peer review stage.

2. Review Stage

  • Double-Blind Peer Review:
    • Two independent experts evaluate manuscripts while maintaining anonymity.
  • Reviewer Feedback:
    • Reviewers assess originality, methodology, and ethical compliance, providing recommendations.
  • Revisions:
    • Authors address reviewer comments and resubmit for further evaluation.

3. Copyediting Stage

  • Language and Style Check:
    • Manuscripts are reviewed for grammar, punctuation, and adherence to the journal’s style guide.
  • Technical Editing:
    • Ensures tables, figures, and references meet publication standards.
  • Final Author Approval:
    • Authors review and approve the copyedited version before production.

4. Production Stage

  • Layout Design:
    • Manuscripts are formatted into the journal’s standard layout.
  • DOI Assignment:
    • Unique DOIs are assigned for permanent identification and accessibility.
  • Proofing:
    • Authors review proofs for minor corrections.
  • Finalization:
    • Articles are queued for publication in an upcoming issue.

Commitment to Transparency and Integrity

JHRR adheres to COPE guidelines to ensure transparency, fairness, and academic excellence:

  • Peer review policies are published on the journal’s website for transparency.
  • Reviewers are acknowledged with anonymized certificates of service.
  • Ethical concerns are addressed promptly during or after the review process.

Timeliness and Constructive Feedback

  • Standard Review Timeframe: 4–6 weeks from submission to first decision.
  • Constructive Feedback: Enables authors to improve their manuscripts and contributes to advancing the field.

Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions through a formal request to the Chief Editor.
  • Appeals are reviewed by an independent committee to ensure fairness and transparency.

Post-Publication Peer Review

  • JHRR encourages professional, constructive post-publication discussions to improve the academic record.

By combining a rigorous peer review policy with a structured OJS-powered workflow, JHRR ensures high-quality, ethical, and impactful research dissemination. We invite researchers to entrust their manuscripts to JHRR and contribute to advancing global knowledge in health and rehabilitation sciences.