Peer-Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation will be peer reviewed. Each manuscript will be sent to the appropriate Editor who in turn will assign 3 reviewers (other members of the Editorial Board or outside experts) with the stipulation that the review must be submitted within 2 weeks. Once the reviews received from at least two reviewers, the Editor will make a decision, regardless of the third reviewer response. In the case of conflicting reviews, Editor will take a decision at their discretion. In general, if two of three reviews are favorable, the manuscript will be accepted. Any properly challenged decision will be taken by the Senior Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.

Review Process

Herbert Publications follow single blinded peer-review process. In this process the author’s names and affiliations will be revealed to the reviewers, while authors are kept blinded from reviewer details. Authors can provide suggested reviewers and disclose any competing interests.

Initial decisions are held by Editors-in-Chief and submitted manuscripts will undergo unbiased preliminary assessment for the suitability to the scope of the journals. As an extension to the process, the assessed manuscripts are forwarded to at-least two expert reviewers in the field. This is intended to advance the correctness, clarity, and wholeness of manuscripts and help editors to decide whether the manuscript has to be published or not. Reports from at least two reviewers will be taken in to consideration for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Editors can give the updated guidance to the reviewers when required. Reviewers are given 3 weeks to send their fair and constructive reviews to Editor, and Editors-in-Chief are aimed to take the final decision within 6 weeks from the manuscript submission.

Key Points

Herbert Publications aim for a timely publication process; reviewers are expected for their prompt response. The whole process is confidential and recommended to maintain the same until the publication process is completed. As the peer review process is very essential for validation of a quality article, the reviewers should consider below mentioned points while addressing the manuscript with comments and additional suggestions.

Originality and significance of the study
Validity of data and interpretation in accordance to the conclusions
Evaluation of methods for their aptness and provided details
Article’s potential to the subject area
Organization of data, figures and tables
Clarity in language and writing, adequate to understand easily
Investigation of additional supplementary files if necessary
Declaration of ethical approvals and competing interests