Guides For Reviewers

About the Journal

The Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (JHUPTR) is a national and international, scientific, open access, free journal published electronically in accordance with the principles of independent, unbiased and double-blind peer-review process. The journal is the official journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, and published 3 times a year, in January, April and August. The publication language is English.

The journal publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, case reports, letters to editors, which are prepared in accordance with ethical rules in the field of physiotherapy and rehabilitation, as well as related health sciences.

Journal of Hacettepe University Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation is indexed within the scope of journals accepted by Hacettepe University. The priority is given to original studies that will interest the clinicians, academicians and scientists related to the physiotherapy and rehabilitation science. Manuscripts submitted for evaluation must not have been previously published elsewhere or sent for publication.

Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated by a double-blind peer-review process. After submission, manuscripts first undergoe a technical evaluation process for compliance with journal’s guideline. Manuscripts which are not prepared in accordance with the journal's guideline are returned to the corresponding author with a technical correction request. The manuscripts that complete the technical evaluation process are reviewed by at least two independent referees who are experts in their fields. The Editor-in-Chief gives the final decision for all submissions.

Ethical Principles

The journal publishes articles prepared according to the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization. (NISO) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The information regarding ethics committee approval, ethics committee name, ethics committee approval number and date should be stated in the 'Methods' section of the manuscript for clinical and experimental researches. It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure the anonymity of the participants. The signed permission documents of the participants or their legal representatives must be sent for photographs that may reveal the identity of the participants. Informed consent should be obtained from the participants for the researches, and this information should be stated in the 'Methods' section of the manuscript.

FOR REVIEWERS:

Before accepting or rejecting an invitation to review an article, consider the following questions;

• Is the article relevant to your area of expertise?
• Do you have a potential conflict of interest? (Explain this to the editor when responding)
• Do you have time? The peer review process can be a lot of work – make sure you can make your review meet the deadline before committing.

Responding to the invitation as quickly as possible (even if you decline) will speed up the review process for the article. Delaying your decision slows down the review process of the article, which means that the author has to wait longer. If you decline the invitation, it would be helpful to suggest an alternative reviewer.

If you accept the invitation to review, you must treat the documents you receive (article and appendices) as confidential documents. This means that you cannot share these documents with anyone without permission from the editor. Since the peer review is confidential, you should not share information about your review with anyone without the permission of the editor and authors.

When you accept the invitation to review, it is recommended that you review the journal-specific writing guide just like the authors and support your review report by using the “Peer Review Form” to facilitate your evaluation while reviewing the article. During your evaluation, you are generally expected to comment on different aspects of the article, such as the quality of the data analysis, reproducibility, and whether the article is sufficiently clear and understandable.

During the peer-review process, your comments will be included in the decision letter sent to the author, so when preparing your report, please keep the author in mind rather than the editor. Also, please ensure that you answer the questions in sufficient detail when submitting your report to the editor so that the author can develop the article most effectively based on your comments.

Please consider the following questions and general headings when writing your comments;

For research article;

• Examine the significance of the research question addressed in the article (e.g., are the objectives and rationale clearly stated?)
• Evaluate the originality of the manuscript (new information contribution to the scientific literature or field).
• Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method described in the article.
• Make helpful comments on the writing of the article (eg language of writing, layout of the article, figures, etc.)
• Make specific comments about the authors' conclusions and their inferences.
• If possible, comment on statistics (e.g. whether they are appropriate and relevant, whether the mechanisms for sampling the control and study group are adequate, and whether they are adequately described in the article, etc.)

For systematic reviews;

• Give your opinion on the importance of the subject/scope of the review.
• Evaluate the originality of the review.
• Comment on whether the author presents the most recent developments in the field. In particular, determine whether the references are relevant and examine whether the references cover both historical literature and more recent developments.
• Comment on the writing, organization, tables and figures of the article.
• Comment on the author's interpretation of the results.

Things to Consider While Creating a Reviewer Report

The Reviewer Report will help the editor decide whether to publish the article. It will also assist authors and allow them to improve their articles. It is important to give your general opinion and general observations on the article.

Your comments should be courteous and constructive and should not contain any descriptions or personal details, including your name.

It is important to give an idea of any shortcomings in your reviewer report. It is recommended that you explain and support your decision so that both editors and authors fully understand the rationale behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or whether they are reflected by data and evidence.

Checklist for Reviewers

• Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor that you have read and understood the research.
• Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is new and interesting, has had sufficient impact, and has contributed to the knowledge database.
• Make specific comments and suggestions for sections such as the title and summary. For example; Does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the summary complete and independent?
• Justify your comments as much as possible.
• Carefully review the methodology, statistics, results, discussion, and references.
• Provide feedback on the presentation of the data in the article, the sustainability and reproducibility of any methodology, the analysis of any data, and whether the results are supported by the data.
• If you suspect plagiarism, fraud, or other ethical concerns, escalate your suspicions to the editor, providing as much detail as possible.
• Be aware of the possibility of bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make dubious decisions that negatively affect the academic publishing process.

Your Suggestion About the Article

Complete the report by making one of the following suggestions to your review report:

Reject: (explain why in your report)

Accept without revision

Revision – majör or minor: (explain the necessary revisions and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are suggesting a correction, provide the author with a clear and solid explanation of why it is necessary.

Final Desicion

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision about the publication of the article in the journal. The Editor-in-Chief will consider all comments. The Editor-in-Chief may seek another opinion or request revision from the author before making a decision.

After Submitting Your Review Report to the Editor

Note that even after finalizing your evaluation, you should treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means that you should not share these documents or information about the assessment with anyone without first getting permission from the editor.

Thank you in advance for your time and valuable feedback.

PEER-REVIEW FORM

Article Total Score: ………/54 = %......

Your Suggestion for Publishing the Article:

Comments to the editor:

Comments to the authors:

Download peer-review form