Guidelines Reviewer

Reviewer Guidelines and Reviewer Ethics Policy

International Journal of Physiotherapy (IJPHY)

 Purpose and Scope

The International Journal of Physiotherapy (IJPHY) considers peer review as a fundamental component of scholarly publishing that ensures the accuracy, reliability, originality, and academic value of published research. The journal follows internationally recognized principles of ethical peer review as recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The purpose of this policy is to define the responsibilities, ethical obligations, and professional standards expected from reviewers involved in evaluating manuscripts submitted to IJPHY. Reviewers contribute to maintaining scientific integrity by providing independent, unbiased, confidential, and constructive assessments that assist editors in making informed publication decisions and help authors improve manuscript quality.

 Principles of Peer Review at IJPHY

IJPHY follows the principles of fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and academic integrity throughout the peer-review process.

The peer-review system is designed to:

  • Ensure that published articles meet high scientific and ethical standards.
  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scholarly merit.
  • Identify methodological limitations and opportunities for improvement.
  • Prevent publication of unreliable, unethical, or scientifically unsupported research.
  • Support continuous improvement in research quality.

The journal follows a structured peer-review process that is independent of commercial, institutional, or personal interests.

Reviewer Selection Policy

IJPHY selects reviewers based on their expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, and familiarity with relevant methodologies.

Reviewers are selected considering:

  • Expertise in the specific area of physiotherapy, rehabilitation, or related health sciences.
  • Research experience demonstrated through scholarly publications.
  • Knowledge of appropriate research designs and statistical methods.
  • Previous peer-review experience where available.
  • Professional reputation and ethical standing.

The journal aims to maintain a diverse reviewer pool representing different countries, institutions, disciplines, and areas of expertise to support international scientific evaluation.

Reviewer selection supports the journal’s commitment to internationalization, editorial diversity, and global research representation, which are important considerations for Scopus evaluation.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers accepted by IJPHY agree to provide a careful, objective, and timely evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific and academic merit.
  • Provide balanced and constructive comments.
  • Identify strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Assess the originality and significance of the research.
  • Evaluate methodological appropriateness.
  • Examine the accuracy of data interpretation.
  • Identify ethical concerns where applicable.
  • Provide recommendations that support editorial decision-making.

Reviewers should not make decisions based on:

  • Author nationality.
  • Institutional affiliation.
  • Gender.
  • Academic status.
  • Personal beliefs.
  • Professional competition.

All manuscripts must be evaluated objectively and fairly.

Reviewer Confidentiality Policy

In accordance with COPE ethical standards, manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts or reviewer reports with others.
  • Discuss manuscript content outside the review process.
  • Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript.
  • Use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal advantage.

The identity of reviewers is protected according to the journal’s peer-review model. Reviewers should maintain confidentiality even after completing their evaluation.

Conflict of Interest Policy for Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a manuscript review.

A reviewer should decline the invitation if:

  • They have collaborated recently with one or more authors.
  • They have a personal relationship with the authors.
  • They have financial or professional interests related to the research.
  • They have competing research interests that may affect impartial judgment.
  • They believe they cannot provide an unbiased assessment.

Reviewers should immediately inform the editorial office if a conflict becomes apparent during the review process.

IJPHY considers appropriate conflict-of-interest management essential for maintaining reviewer independence and editorial credibility.

Reviewer Assessment Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts using the following criteria.

  1. Scientific Importance and Originality

Reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the research addresses an important question.
  • Whether the study provides new knowledge.
  • Whether the findings contribute meaningfully to physiotherapy practice or rehabilitation science.
  • Whether the manuscript demonstrates sufficient originality.
  1. Methodological Quality

Reviewers should evaluate:

  • Appropriateness of study design.
  • Adequacy of sample size and participant selection.
  • Validity and reliability of outcome measures.
  • Suitability of statistical methods.
  • Management of bias and confounding factors.
  • Adequacy of methodological description.
  1. Results and Interpretation

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • Results are presented clearly.
  • Statistical findings are appropriately reported.
  • Conclusions are supported by evidence.
  • Limitations are acknowledged.
  • Claims are not exaggerated beyond the data.
  1. Reporting Standards

Reviewers should encourage authors to follow appropriate reporting guidelines, including:

  • CONSORT for randomized controlled trials.
  • PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • STROBE for observational studies.
  • CARE for case reports.
  • SPIRIT for clinical trial protocols.
  1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should identify concerns related to:

  • Ethical approval.
  • Informed consent.
  • Participant confidentiality.
  • Clinical trial registration.
  • Research misconduct.
  • Appropriate citation practices.

Reviewer Comments and Recommendations

Reviewer comments should be clear, respectful, specific, and scientifically justified.

Effective reviewer comments should:

  • Explain identified problems.
  • Suggest possible improvements.
  • Distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.
  • Provide evidence-based recommendations.

Reviewers should avoid:

  • Personal criticism of authors.
  • Offensive or inappropriate language.
  • Unreasonable demands.
  • Requests for citation of the reviewer’s own publications without scientific justification.

The reviewer recommendation should reflect the quality of the manuscript and not personal preference.

Confidential Comments to Editors

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to editors regarding:

  • Serious ethical concerns.
  • Potential research misconduct.
  • Suspected plagiarism.
  • Concerns about data reliability.
  • Significant methodological limitations.

Confidential comments should support editorial decision-making and should not contain information that conflicts with comments provided to authors.

Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept

The manuscript is scientifically sound and requires no substantial modification.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is acceptable but requires limited corrections or clarification.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvement before further evaluation.

Reject

The manuscript contains major scientific, ethical, methodological, or relevance concerns.

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or delegated Associate Editor.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not guarantee acceptance or rejection.

Reviewer Timeliness

IJPHY expects reviewers to complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should:

  • Respond promptly to review invitations.
  • Decline assignments when unable to complete reviews.
  • Inform the editorial office if additional time is required.

Timely peer review supports efficient editorial processing and improves the author experience.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools by Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain manuscript confidentiality when using digital tools.

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, or confidential information into publicly available artificial intelligence systems.

AI tools may assist reviewers with administrative tasks but must not replace expert evaluation, critical analysis, or professional judgment.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and ethical integrity of their reviews.

Reviewer Misconduct Policy

Reviewer misconduct includes:

  • Breaching confidentiality.
  • Using unpublished information for personal benefit.
  • Providing biased or discriminatory reviews.
  • Manipulating peer review.
  • Misrepresenting expertise.
  • Deliberately delaying manuscript evaluation.

Suspected reviewer misconduct will be investigated according to COPE recommendations.

Possible actions include:

  • Removal from the reviewer database.
  • Restriction from future reviewing.
  • Notification of relevant institutions where appropriate.
  • Additional editorial safeguards.

Reviewer Recognition and Development

IJPHY recognizes reviewers as essential contributors to maintaining publication quality.

The journal may support reviewer development through:

  • Reviewer guidance documents.
  • Feedback on review quality.
  • Certificates of contribution.
  • Recognition of outstanding reviewers.
  • Opportunities for involvement in editorial activities.

High-performing reviewers may be considered for future editorial roles based on expertise, reliability, and contribution.

Reviewer Database Management

IJPHY maintains a reviewer database containing information regarding reviewer expertise, affiliations, research interests, and performance.

Reviewer information is periodically updated to ensure:

  • Appropriate reviewer selection.
  • Geographic diversity.
  • Subject expertise coverage.
  • Efficient peer-review management.

Continuous Improvement of Peer Review

IJPHY continuously evaluates its peer-review system using quality indicators, including:

  • Reviewer response rate.
  • Review completion time.
  • Review quality.
  • Reviewer diversity.
  • Editorial decision consistency.
  • Author feedback.

The journal periodically updates reviewer policies to maintain alignment with COPE recommendations, international publishing standards, and Scopus expectations.

Reviewer Declaration

By accepting a manuscript review assignment from IJPHY, reviewers confirm that they:

  • Have appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Will maintain confidentiality.
  • Will disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Will provide an objective and constructive assessment.
  • Will follow COPE principles of ethical peer review.
  • Will support the journal’s commitment to scientific integrity and quality improvement.