Authors suggest two reviewers, but the Editor reserves the right to the final selection. Review procedures are set forth in accordance with the guidelines of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Reviews are written by completing a paper review form where reviewers have to explicitly express whether the manuscript is accepted for publication or rejected. Once a year, the Editor provides a general list of the invited reviewers.
To achieve the aim of publishing top-quality papers, the editorial process at Physiotherapy Quarterly consists of two stages: pre-review (1) and peer review (2).
First stage: Pre-review
After submission, a paper enters the pre-review stage. Its aim is to identify papers that have the potential to be interesting for PHYSIOTHERAPY Quarterly readers.
The pre-review assessment is based on the following criteria:
- Does the paper fall within the broad remit of the quarterly?
- Is the paper appropriately formatted for the quarterly?
- Is the paper novel and interesting?
- Is the subject area covered by the scope of the journal?
- Does the paper have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the development of the field of physiotherapy?
Second stage: Peer review evaluation
If a paper is not rejected at the pre-review stage, it then goes into the peer review. Each paper is typically reviewed by two independent reviewers (more if necessary; in some cases, the review process can rely on the report of only one reviewer) and a member of the editorial team then makes a decision concerning publication, either:
- Reject – the paper is not acceptable for publication and re-submission will not be considered;
- Major Revision – the paper requires major changes and needs to go through the review process again with no guarantee of acceptance;
- Minor Revision – the paper is provisionally accepted, subject to conditions that need to be addressed when producing the final version of the manuscript.
In both cases of revision, the authors are obliged to return their corrected manuscripts within a period of 3 weeks. Any extension of that period has to be discussed with the editor-in-chief. Authors are obliged to cooperate with the editorial staff: native speaker, editors (language and statistical data) in order to eliminate ambiguities and errors. In a case when no response to the editorial observations is made within a week, the author’s consent for an introduction of the suggested changes is taken for granted.