Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Foundation University Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences follows the double-blind review process of peer review, which is a fundamental component of scientific publishing. Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial internal peer-review to evaluate the originality of the manuscript, relevance to the journal’s scope, ethical compliance, content and adherence to journal formatting and reporting guidelines. Manuscripts found unsuitable for publication with reference to poor structure, substandard writing, or irrelevant topics are rejected at this initial stage of peer review. Manuscripts that require any revision after internal review are returned to the authors for required amendments. Manuscripts found suitable following internal review/revision by the assigned editor are forwarded for at least two external reviews. The only exception to this process is invited editorials or the editorials and obituaries authored by the editor in chief and letter to editors.
The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It is recommended that reviewers should not retain or copy the manuscripts sent for review. Moreover, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the art. Manuscripts are reviewed by two independent experts in the relevant area. The reviewers make a scientific assessment and a recommendation to the editors. The identity of the reviewers remain unknown to the authors. The Handling editor considers the manuscript and the reviewers’ comments before making a final decision either to accept, accept with revision, return for revision, or to reject a manuscript.

Double-Blind Review:

The identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review. In order to facilitate this, authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in such a way that they do not reveal their identities to reviewers, either directly or indirectly. The authors are instructed to ensure that the following items are not present in the manuscript and are provided as a separate file with the title of “Title Page”, which should include:
• The manuscript title
• Article category, abstract word count, manuscript word count
• All authors' names and affiliations
• A complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address
• Acknowledgments

Anonymized manuscript:

The title page will remain separate from the manuscript file throughout the peer review process and will not be sent to the reviewers. The authors are instructed to remove any identifying information, such as authors' names or affiliations, from the manuscript before submission. Reviewer Blinding is further ensured by the assigned editor who is responsible for reviewing the manuscript file for any author identification markers and removing them from document and document properties. Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias, for example, based on an author’s country of origin or previous controversial work. Authors should be aware that despite extensive efforts, it is still possible that reviewers might identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation. Any identifying information of the reviewers is removed by the assigned editor from the manuscript file containing the reviewer’s comments, before it is returned to the authors for revision, ensuring that the authors remain blinded to the reviewer’s identity. Additionally, reviewer proforma given to reviewers is not forwarded to authors and any comments specified in reviewer proforma are provided to authors in the revision request email under the heading of reviewers’ comments, to ensure anonymity.

Confidentiality:

Editors and reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality for all manuscripts submitted to FUJRS, unless otherwise specified. If a reviewer wishes to delegate the review or seek the opinion of a colleague on a specific aspect of the paper, they are expected to clear this with the editor in the first instance.

Reviewers/referees' conflict of interest:

We encourage editors to consider potential conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers. The journal includes wording in their invitation to review stating that acceptance of the invitation implies no financial or competing interest. Where a reviewer declares a potential conflict of interest the editor will select alternative reviewers. Failure to declare a conflict of interest may result in the removal of the reviewer from the journal database.