Peer Review Process

Egyptian Journal of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (EJPTR) relies on the double-blind peer review process to assess the quality of the manuscript to be published, in which the author's identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa throughout the review process. Manuscripts that are submitted for peer review are reviewed by two reviewers with relevant experience in the field. Reviewers are requested to provide detailed, constructive critiques along with suggestions for improving the work. The reviewers are asked to inform the journal editor if they hold a conflict of interest that may prejudice the review report, either positively or negatively. editor-in-chief makes the final decision.

  1. Submission of Paper: The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via an online system, EJPTR will accept submissions by email.

The Manuscript Code is produced automatically and cannot be changed. The Manuscript's code is a combination of the journal's abbreviation and a four-digit figure that starts from 1000.

  1. Editorial Office Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines. The EIC checks the paper, considering its scope, originality, and merits. The EIC may reject the paper at this stage.

          EIC may also assign an Editor who handles the peer review.

  1. Invitation to Reviewers:
  • The Editor-in-Chief appoints someone as the Reviewer of a manuscript.
  • The Reviewer receives an access link for the manuscript via an email and is asked to accept or decline the task. In this stage, the Reviewer does not need to log in. The Reviewer chooses either to accept or to refuse the task via the system by clicking on the link. The Reviewer can also use his username and password to log in and choose Reviewer.
  1. A review is Conducted:
  • The Reviewer clicks on the manuscript's code and can access the full paper or download it.
  • The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review.
  • Reviewers have had to comment on a Manuscript in descriptive writing form, they can fill out the Reviewing form (Reviewer Comment for Author, Reviewer Comment for Editor/Editor-in-Chief) or send an edited, commented on, or annotated version of the manuscript to the Editor. The reviewer also can post their comments on the margin of a manuscript or use Microsoft Word's tools to pinpoint the revisions and amendments and attach the edited file along with comments, so the file is sent to the Editor and the Author.
  • Finally, it is necessary for the Reviewer to choose one of the five options available as his final judgment:
  1. Accept. 
  2. Minor Revision.
  3. Major Revision.
  4. Reject. 
  5. Unable to review.
  • Reviewers have two weeks to finish and submit their reviews; the peer review process must be finished in one month.
  • The editor tracks the reviewers and sends a reminder email after the due date. If the reviewer does not respond, the editor will move forward without their reviews.
  1. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The EIC or handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to get an extra opinion before deciding.

         The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Comments will be anonymous.

  1. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.