Peer Review Policy & Process

Peer Review Policy and Process

The International Journal of Health and Rehabilitation (IJHR_ORG) employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review system as the cornerstone of our commitment to scientific integrity, impartiality, and quality assurance. This process is designed to ensure that all published research is evaluated solely on its scholarly merit, methodological soundness, and contribution to the field, free from bias related to the authors' or reviewers' identities.

1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team. This screening verifies:

  • Alignment with the journal's Aims and Scope.

  • Basic adherence to Author Guidelines (format, structure, required declarations).

  • Compliance with fundamental ethical standards (e.g., presence of ethical approval statements).

  • Originality and absence of obvious scientific flaws.
    Manuscripts that do not meet these essential criteria may be declined without further peer review ("desk rejection") to expedite the process for authors.

2. Reviewer Selection and Invitation
Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to an Academic Editor, who initiates the formal peer review.

  • A minimum of two independent expert reviewers is sought for each submission.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their proven expertise in the manuscript's specific subject area, as evidenced by their publication record.

  • The editorial team diligently screens potential reviewers for any conflicts of interest (e.g., recent co-authorship, institutional affiliation, known direct competition) before invitation.

  • Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission; however, the journal is not obliged to use them, and all suggestions are rigorously vetted to confirm their appropriateness and independence.

3. The Double-Blind Review Process
IJHR_ORG operates a strict double-blind process:

  • Author Anonymity: All identifying information (author names, affiliations, acknowledgments) is removed from the manuscript file before it is sent to reviewers.

  • Reviewer Anonymity: The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors or to other reviewers.

  • This mutual anonymity is maintained to encourage candid, objective critiques focused solely on the content of the work.

4. Responsibilities and Expectations of Reviewers
Invited reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a privileged, confidential document. It must not be shared, discussed, or used for any purpose outside the review process.

  • Provide Objective, Constructive Feedback: Deliver a thorough, evidence-based, and respectful assessment. Critiques should be aimed at improving the manuscript's quality, clarity, and scientific rigor.

  • Declare Conflicts: Immediately decline the invitation or disclose any potential competing interest to the editor upon receipt.

  • Ensure Timeliness: Submit their review within the agreed timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks). Reviewers requiring an extension should notify the editorial office promptly.

  • Report Ethical Concerns: Alert the editor to any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research, or dual submission.

5. Editorial Decision and Revision Process

  • The handling editor synthesizes the reviewers' reports and makes a recommendation. Decisions are:

    • Accept: Rare; the manuscript is suitable for publication as is.

    • Minor Revisions: Acceptable pending specific, straightforward clarifications or corrections.

    • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial additional work. A point-by-point response to reviewers and a revised manuscript are required, which will typically be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

    • Reject: The manuscript has fundamental flaws in scope, methodology, or originality.

  • Authors of manuscripts requiring revision receive the anonymized reviewers' comments and the editor's decision letter. They are given a specified period to revise and resubmit.

6. Safeguarding Against Review Manipulation
IJHR_ORG is vigilant against attempts to compromise the peer review process:

  • Reviewer identities are verified through institutional email addresses and professional profiles.

  • We monitor for patterns suggestive of fraudulent peer review, such as suspicious reviewer suggestions or email domains.

  • If manipulation is suspected, the editorial team will investigate, which may include seeking additional independent reviews and notifying relevant institutions.

7. Final Decision and Post-Acceptance
The editor's decision, informed by peer review, is final. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage for copyediting, typesetting, and proofing. Authors must approve the final proofs before publication.

Our Commitment
IJHR_ORG is dedicated to a peer review process that is transparent in its principles, fair in its execution, and constructive in its outcomes. We strive for timely decisions while upholding the highest standards of academic critique. This process ensures that the research we publish meets the rigorous demands of the global health and rehabilitation community, thereby advancing credible and impactful scientific knowledge.