Guidelines Reviewer

International Journal of Physiotherapy (IJPHY) follows COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Research articles are considered as intellectual property, and misuse of the submitted article is considered as unethical and illegal. Protecting the unpublished article, which is submitted to our journal, is our prior importance. Reviewers should not use any aspect of the given article in their research or any future activities.

Any article given to the reviewer is found challenging to review impartially, kindly return the article to the editor within 07 working days with a detailed explanation.

If the article given to the reviewer is accepted for review, the detailed review should be finished within two weeks. In case if the reviewer needs more time for review, the information should be given to the editor.

The author’s information should be kept confidential, and the reviewer is not supposed to contact the authors in any case.  The reviewer can discuss the content in the articles with any subject expert or his colleagues after informing the same to the editor.

Acceptance or rejection of any article is entirely the editor’s decision. Reviewer is requested not to comment this in his review but can inform the editor in a separate sheet with mentioning the article number and its status for acceptance or rejection if he feels its worth to inform.

Points to be considered while reviewing the manuscript:

  1. The main focus should be on “scientific reliability” and “professional knowledge,” which are two major pillars for any profession.
  2. How far the research question or subject-focused in the manuscript is helping in the improvement of the scope of physiotherapy?
  3. The originality of the manuscript should be inspected in depth.
  4. Adequacy of abstract, keywords.
  5. Keen observation is required on the appropriateness of approach or research design, adequacy of experimental techniques (Including statistical appropriateness, adequately described methodology, and mentioned characteristics of the patient to be included and excluded).
  6. Are results relevant to a problem posed? Credible? How well were they presented?
  7. The soundness of interpretation and conclusion determines the confidence of the author's work.
  8. Is the discussion relevant for justifying the author’s claims?
  9. References must be up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
  10. The relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends, and titles should be focused.
  11. The reviewer can request any additional information related to manuscript data at any time.
  12. The reviewer should not give his judgment based on the author’s geographical location.
  13. Consider ethical issues of research.
  14. Overall presentation and style of manuscript should follow the journal guidelines (including writing style, clarity of writing).
  15. A fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript is the main concept behind the review.
  1. Constructive criticism is base for scientific growth. For this reason, detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) about the manuscript are required. This will benefit both the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.
  2. The reviewer should not mislead the author to use the reviewer’s work in references mealy to increase his citations for his work.  If he feels it is appropriate for academic reasons, he can suggest.
  3. Avoid dispassionate comments and abrasive remarks towards the authors' work. Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.
  4. If the reviewer is having any thoughts which can improve his feedback after submitting the report, which he feels matter of consideration as per the subject discussed in the manuscript, he can contact the editor through email.
  5. The reviewer is not requested to correct mistakes in grammar and language standards, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.

Note:

The editor gratefully receives a reviewer's recommendations. Still, since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honor his or her every recommendation.