Peer Review Process for The Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research (JHRR)

The Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research (JHRR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and impartiality through its double-blind peer review system. By ensuring both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process, we aim to eliminate potential biases and uphold the quality of submissions.

Upon receiving a manuscript, JHRR first assesses it for relevance and alignment with our journal's scope. Manuscripts deemed suitable are forwarded to a minimum of two neutral expert reviewers for rigorous assessment. The final decision on the acceptance or rejection of a paper rests solely with the Editor, and this decision is non-negotiable.

Instructions for JHRR Reviewers

Guided by the ICMJE Peer Reviewers Guidelines concerning responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process:

  • Manuscripts submitted to JHRR are treated as privileged communications. These are confidential and solely the intellectual property of the authors. Any unauthorized disclosure of the manuscript's details can potentially harm the authors.
  • Reviewers are obliged to maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts. They should refrain from discussing the manuscript publicly or using the authors' ideas until after publication. Personal retention of manuscripts is prohibited. Reviewers must dispose of all manuscript copies post-review.
  • Should reviewers involve a colleague or a trainee in the review, they must credit them in the comments submitted to the Editor. While maintaining manuscript confidentiality, reviewers are discouraged from uploading it to AI or software where confidentiality isn't guaranteed. If AI technology assists in the review, this must be disclosed. It's essential to remember that AI outputs can sometimes be misleading, biased, or incomplete.
  • We expect our reviewers to respond timely to review requests and submit their evaluations within the stipulated timeframe. Comments should be constructive, truthful, and respectful.
  • Potential conflicts of interest, whether they are personal, financial, or academic, must be declared by reviewers. If a substantial conflict exists, the reviewer should recuse themselves from the process.

JHRR Review Policy

All submitted manuscripts to JHRR undergo a thorough assessment based on their originality, relevance, documentation quality, potential reader interest, and overall composition.

Manuscripts that don't adhere to JHRR's submission guidelines will be sent back to authors for necessary corrections before entering the peer review process. The evaluation of revised manuscripts will focus on the appropriateness of the changes made in response to the initial feedback.

JHRR ensures all accepted manuscripts undergo an editing process for scientific precision and clarity, handled by the Editor's office. The Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research's editorial board reserves the absolute right to decide on the acceptance or rejection of any article at any stage, including after the editorial review.


Guidelines on Peer Reviewer Selection and Engagement to Curtail Peer Review Manipulation at the JHRR

In recent times, concerns have risen over peer review manipulations where authors deceitfully control or influence the peer review process of their own manuscripts. To prevent this unethical practice and maintain the high standard of integrity that The Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research (JHRR) is known for, we have laid down the following guidelines on the peer reviewer selection process. These guidelines serve to ensure the objectivity and transparency of the peer review process, drawing from the recommendations made by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

Preventing Peer Review Manipulation through Vigilant Reviewer Selection

Selection Best Practices

  1. Editors must employ all resources at their disposal, including electronic databases and editorial board recommendations, to identify reviewers with expert knowledge in the relevant field and without substantial conflicts of interest.
  2. Avoid choosing individuals who have collaborated with the authors in the last 10 years, work at the same institution as the authors, or have any other discernable conflicts of interest as reviewers.
  3. Prospective reviewers should willingly recuse themselves if they recognize a conflict of interest or feel they cannot provide an impartial review.

Guidelines to Bypass Selection of Dishonest Peer Reviewers

  1. Avoid solely using peer reviewers suggested by the author.
  2. If considering a reviewer suggested by the author, validate their contact details through independent means, preferably using professional or academic channels linked to their published works or through recommendations from the editorial board.
  3. Encourage reviewers to register with ORCID to facilitate the verification of their identity while staying aware of potential ORCID ID misrepresentations.

Detection of Fraudulent Peer Reviews

To safeguard the authenticity of the review process, editors should be watchful for signs of peer review manipulation. This includes unusually quick review submissions or superficial and overly positive feedback. Suspicious cases should warrant an additional independent review and further verification of the reviewer’s identity and details.

Protocol in Case of False Reviewer Information

If a discrepancy or falsification in the reviewer’s contact details is discovered, it requires the editor to seek clarification from the author. Should there be a substantial indication of deceitful intent, further action, including notifying the author’s institution, may be necessitated.

We trust that adhering to these guidelines will foster a robust and trustworthy peer review process. We urge our editors to remain vigilant and approach new sources of reviewer information with a healthy degree of skepticism to prevent any form of manipulation. JHRR is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct in academic publishing and seeks the cooperation of all stakeholders in this endeavor. Let us work together to maintain the honor and integrity of scholarly communication through a fair and transparent peer review process.

Double Blind Peer Review & Editorial Process

Double Blind Peer Review & Editorial Policy at JHRR

The Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research (JHRR) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system, a gold standard in academic publishing. This system emphasizes confidentiality, ensuring that both the authors' and reviewers' identities remain concealed from each other. This process stands at the forefront of our commitment to impartiality and integrity, promoting unbiased assessment of the manuscript's content.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation:

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening. This step is crucial to ascertain its alignment with JHRR's scope, its academic relevance, and the originality of content. Those manuscripts that resonate with the journal’s ethos and meet the high standards set by our editorial board progress to the subsequent phase of review.

The Review Process Unveiled:

Manuscripts that clear the initial evaluation are then forwarded to a pair of expert reviewers, chosen based on their domain expertise. Adhering to our strict double-blind protocol, these reviewers delve deep into the content, assessing its methodology, relevance, and potential contribution to the field. They are allocated a period of two weeks, ensuring they have ample time for a comprehensive and thorough review.

Feedback, Revisions, and Resubmission:

Post-review, the feedback can vary. Manuscripts may be accepted as they are, or more commonly, authors might be asked to make specific revisions. In instances where changes are recommended, authors receive clear and constructive feedback to guide their revisions. A timeline of three days is set for these revisions, though, in exceptional cases, extensions can be granted. Once authors resubmit, the manuscript undergoes another round of scrutiny to ascertain that the feedback has been aptly addressed.

Deciding the Manuscript’s Fate:

After the reviewers are satisfied with the revisions, the manuscript is forwarded to the editor for the final decision. The entire journey, from submission to this concluding decision, is meticulously designed to be completed within 15-20 days. This ensures authors are provided timely responses, keeping the momentum of their academic pursuits.

Addressing Potential Conflicts of Interest:

Transparency is at the core of JHRR's editorial policy. If a conflict of interest is identified at any stage of the review process, the manuscript's evaluation is overseen by a neutral member of the Editorial Board. This ensures that every manuscript, regardless of its origins or the affiliations of its authors, gets a fair and unbiased evaluation.

Our Dedication to Transparency and Excellence:

JHRR is not just about publishing research; it’s about promoting transparency, quality, and academic excellence. Every step of our editorial process reflects our unwavering commitment to these ideals. For researchers and authors, this meticulous process ensures that their work is assessed with the highest standards in mind.

In Closing:

For every scholar considering JHRR as a platform for their research, we extend our deepest gratitude. It's your pioneering work that fuels the academic world, and we're honored to be a part of that journey.