Innovative Journal of Physiotherapy

Overview

Peer review is a formal, independent evaluation process where experts in a specific field assess scholarly manuscripts before publication. This system serves as a critical quality control mechanism, ensuring that published research meets high standards of scientific validity, originality, and ethical integrity. At the Innovative Journal of Physiotherapy, peer review not only validates methodological soundness and analytical accuracy but also enhances manuscript clarity and impact through constructive expert feedback. Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the journal’s academic credibility and advancing knowledge in physiotherapy and rehabilitation worldwide.

Our Double-Blind Peer Review System

The Innovative Journal of Physiotherapy follows a double-blind peer review system, designed to maximise the quality of research and minimise bias. In this system, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the evaluation process. This structure ensures that assessments are based solely on scholarly merit, unaffected by author reputation, institutional affiliation, or geographic location. The typical review period spans 3–5 weeks, though complex manuscripts may require additional time. This approach aligns with international publishing standards and fosters an environment of impartial scholarly evaluation.

Peer Review Workflow Overview

The peer review process follows a structured pathway from submission to editorial decision:

1. Initial Editorial Screening (2–3 days): The editorial team evaluates manuscripts for scope alignment, basic quality standards, and formatting compliance. Approximately 30% of submissions may be returned or declined at this stage.
2. Reviewer Assignment (5–7 days): Suitable reviewers are identified based on expertise, availability, and conflict-free status. The system typically invites 3–4 reviewers per manuscript to ensure at least two complete evaluations.
3. Peer Evaluation Phase (14–21 days): Reviewers conduct detailed assessments using standardised evaluation criteria, submitting comprehensive reports with specific recommendations.
4. Decision Formulation (3–5 days): The handling editor synthesises reviewer feedback, evaluates conflicting assessments, and determines the appropriate editorial outcome.
5. Author Notification: Authors receive the decision along with anonymised reviewer comments and clear instructions for revisions when applicable.

The complete cycle from submission to initial decision typically requires 4–6 weeks, though exceptionally strong or problematic manuscripts may follow accelerated or extended timelines, respectively.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Guidelines

Pre-Review Considerations: Before agreeing to undertake a review assignment, potential reviewers must ensure that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and that they can complete the review within the specified timeframe. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including collaborative, institutional, or competitive relationships. A comprehensive review typically requires 4–6 hours of focused effort and should be returned within 14 days.

Review Execution Protocol: Upon accepting a review assignment, reviewers should first read the manuscript in its entirety to understand its structure and key conclusions. A detailed section-wise evaluation should then be conducted using the journal’s standardised criteria. Strict confidentiality must be maintained at all times. Reviewer feedback should be constructive, specific, and actionable, focusing on scientific quality, clarity, and presentation.

Ethical Obligations: Reviewers must report any suspected scholarly misconduct, including plagiarism or data fabrication, directly to the editor. Verification of ethical approval, informed consent, and clinical trial registration is mandatory where applicable. Reviewers must remain objective, avoid personal criticism, preserve anonymity, and disclose any newly identified conflicts of interest immediately.

Comprehensive Manuscript Evaluation Framework

Scientific Quality Assessment: Reviewers assess originality, significance, methodological rigour, analytical soundness, and whether conclusions are directly supported by the data without overgeneralisation or speculation.

Structural and Presentation Evaluation

• Title: Accuracy, conciseness, and keyword inclusion
• Abstract: Complete study summary, structured format for research articles
• Introduction: Clear rationale, literature context, and specific objectives
• Methods: Detailed protocols, equipment specifications, and analytical approaches
• Results: Logical organisation, appropriate visualisation, and statistical reporting
• Discussion: Interpretation consistency, limitation acknowledgement, and future directions
• References: Relevance, currency, and proper citation format

Technical and Ethical Compliance: Reviewers must assess figure and table quality, statistical reporting accuracy (including p-values and confidence intervals), ethical documentation (IRB approval, consent statements), terminology consistency, and relevance of supplementary materials.

Standardised Rating System

IJP employs a five-tier rating scale to ensure consistent evaluation:

• 1 – Excellent: Exceptional manuscript meeting all criteria; accept without revision
• 2 – Good: Strong manuscript with minor correctable issues; accept after minor revisions
• 3 – Fair: Valuable research requiring substantial improvement; major revisions and re-review
• 4 – Poor: Significant flaws requiring fundamental changes; reject with resubmission possibility
• 5 – Unacceptable: Fundamental deficiencies or ethical concerns; reject without resubmission

Review Report Composition Guidelines

Required Report Components: Review reports must include a summary statement, major concerns affecting validity or interpretation, minor comments related to clarity or formatting, confidential remarks for the editor regarding ethical issues or conflicts of interest, and a clear decision recommendation.

• Accept: Manuscript meets all criteria for publication
• Minor Revisions: Requires small corrections without substantive changes
• Major Revisions: Requires significant improvement and re-evaluation
• Reject with Resubmission: Fundamental issues but potentially salvageable
• Reject: Unacceptable due to critical flaws or scope mismatch

For reviewer assistance or procedural questions, please contact: editor@spjinternational.co

Last Updated: 28/12/2025