Archives of ISPRM relies on the expertise and diligence of peer reviewers to maintain the highest standards of scientific quality, integrity, and ethical rigor. The following guidelines outline expectations, responsibilities, and best practices for reviewers engaged in evaluating manuscripts submitted to the journal.

The Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Archives of ISPRM undergo an initial editorial assessment to ensure compliance with the journal's scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards. Submissions deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected without external review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are subject to a double-blind peer review process. At least two independent external reviewers—selected based on subject-matter expertise and relevant academic qualifications—are invited to provide detailed, objective, and evidence-based evaluations.

The purpose of the peer review is to assess the scientific quality, originality, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity of the submission, as well as to evaluate its structure, clarity, and referencing.

Final decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with Associate Editors, based on a thorough assessment of reviewer reports and overall editorial judgment.

The editorial and publication processes of the Journal are conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The Journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (https://doaj.org/apply/transparency).

Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review, please consider:

• Whether the manuscript falls within your area of expertise
• Whether you can complete the review within the requested timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks)
• Whether any conflicts of interest exist that would prevent impartial evaluation

If you cannot accept, please decline promptly and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. Conflicts may arise from competitive, collaborative, personal, financial, or institutional relationships with the authors, their institutions, or companies related to the manuscript.

Key points:

• Disclosure: Any potential conflict must be reported to the editors immediately.
• Decline if necessary: Reviewers should decline the invitation if they:
  • Have a personal or professional relationship with any author
  • Have collaborated with the authors in the past three years
  • Work at the same institution as any author
  • Have a financial interest in the research outcomes
  • Cannot provide an unbiased review for any reason
• Confidentiality: Unpublished material must not be used in reviewers' own research without authors' written consent. Privileged information gained through peer review must remain confidential and not be used for personal advantage.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential. Reviewers must:

• Not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript with anyone except as authorized by the editor.
• Not use information or data from unpublished manuscripts for personal research or any other purpose without the explicit written consent of the authors.

Conducting the Review

When evaluating manuscripts, please assess:

• Originality: Does the work present novel findings or perspectives?
• Scientific Validity: Are the methodology and analysis appropriate and rigorous?
• Significance: Does the research advance the field of physical and rehabilitation medicine?
• Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and logically organized?
• Ethics: Does the study meet ethical standards for human or animal research?
• References: Is the relevant literature appropriately cited?

Writing Your Review

Effective reviews are:

• Constructive: Provide specific, actionable feedback to help authors improve their work
• Respectful: Critique the work professionally without personal attacks
• Detailed: Explain your reasoning and cite specific sections when noting concerns
• Balanced: Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses
• Organized: Structure comments as major concerns, minor concerns, and optional suggestions

Recommendation Categories

Please conclude your review with one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: Suitable for publication with no or minimal changes
• Minor Revision: Requires small modifications that do not need re-review
• Major Revision: Requires substantial changes and another round of review
• Reject: Not suitable for publication in its current form

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

In addition, with the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in manuscript preparation, reviewers should be aware of potential AI-assisted content and provide guidance on transparency and integrity. If reviewers detect that AI-based tools may have been used in manuscript preparation (e.g., for text generation, language editing, figure creation, or data analysis), they should ensure that authors have properly disclosed AI usage in accordance with the journal's AI disclosure policies.

Timeline

We request that reviews be completed within 14-21 days of acceptance. If you require additional time, please contact the editorial office. Prompt reviews help authors receive timely feedback and maintain efficient publication schedules.

Ethical Concerns

If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, ethical violations, or other misconduct, please notify the editor immediately through confidential comments. Do not contact the authors directly regarding these concerns.

Recognition and Professional Credit

We value the essential contribution reviewers make to scholarly publishing. Archives of ISPRM acknowledges reviewers annually and provides verification letters upon request for professional records.

Contact

For questions about the review process, please contact: editor@archivesisprm.org