The Review Process
Submitted manuscripts are checked by the Editor-in-Chief for scope of content and to assure that it is likely to meet the requirement of providing information that will advance the field of physiotherapy and describing a sufficient body of work to support that claim. The Editor-in-Chief may query the Associate Editors regarding the above. If the manuscript meets the minimum criteria, then it is assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant content expertise and sent out for blinded peer review. When the reviewers return their reviews they are asked to give a general recommendation.
The reviews and recommendations are forwarded to an Associate Editor who summarizes the reviews, offers additional suggestions, and recommends a decision. When differences of opinion occur between reviewers, the Associate Editor weighs the reviewers’ comments and arrives at a balanced decision. Based on the reviews and recommendations of the Associate Editor and reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision about the manuscript.
When a manuscript has been revised in response to comments by reviewers, every effort is made to acquire reviews from the original reviewers. The reviewers’ comments from the original review are forwarded to the reviewers of the revised submission. As part of the re-review we ask reviewers to offer comment regarding how well the author has responded to the prior review. We ask the reviewers to raise new concerns only if they have arisen from changes made subsequent to the initial submission.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected for a particular manuscript based on many factors, including expertise, prior review history, specific recommendations of authors, and the Editor-in-Chief’s/Associate Editor’s own knowledge of a reviewer. The manuscript Abstract is sent to potential reviewers as part of the reviewer invitation. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages contain confidential information.
Writing the Review
The purpose of the review is to provide an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration, and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their manuscripts so that they will be acceptable for publication in Majmaah Journal of Health Sciences. Although confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the manuscript should be directed to the authors themselves.
Confidentiality
The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Because the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one including colleagues or other experts in the field, should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the Editor-in-Chief.
Timely Review
Majmaah Journal of Health Sciences believes that an efficient editorial process that results in timely publication provides a valuable service both to authors and to the community at large. We therefore request that reviewers respond promptly, usually within 14 days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.
Anonymity
Majmaah Journal of Health Sciences practices blinded peer review. We believe that this form of review is most appropriate because of the close-knit readership community we serve. While the Associate Editor assigned to the manuscript is blinded to author information, the authors are informed of the assigned Associate Editor at the time of decision notification. Authors may choose to contact the Associate Editor with queries related to the review of their manuscript. We disapprove of any attempt on the part of authors to discover the identity of any reviewer or to contact this person directly. Reviewers are asked to adopt the same policy.
Competing Interests
As far as possible we respect requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest, such as those who may have been collaborators on other projects with the authors of the manuscript under review, those who may be direct competitors, those who may have a known history of antipathy with the author(s), or those who might profit financially from the work. However it is not possible for all such competing interests to be known by Majmaah Journal of Health Sciences, so reviewers who recognize a potential competing interest must inform the Editor-in-Chief and excuse themselves if they feel they are unable to offer an impartial review.
Feedback to Reviewers
We send reviewers' comments along with the decision letter to all reviewers of that manuscript. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered or that their service not appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editors to make a final publication decision.