International Journal of Social Rehabilitation

Home Aim & Scope Editorial Board Archives Articles Author instructions Online Submission Contact Us

Peer Review Policy

International Journal of Social Rehabilitation follows a single anonymised peer review system in which at the least independent, blinded, professional peer reviewers are concerned whose names are hidden from the writer.

All submissions to our journals are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review.

Editors will take into consideration the peer-reviewed report whilst making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. An issue if raised by a single peer reviewer or the editor themself will result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript

International Journal of Social Rehabilitation - the peer review process.

1. Initial Processing by Editorial Assistant

Before your paper is forwarded for peer review, the Editorial Assistant will carry out quality checks on the submitted manuscript. At that time, you will be asked for more information.

2. Editor Assignment evaluation:

When the selected manuscript has passed initial quality checks by the Editorial Assistant, it will be assigned to an appropriate Associate Editor who will evaluate the manuscript for scope, quality, and fit for the journal. The manuscript that does not meet these criteria will be rejected.

3. Awaiting Reviewer Selection

The Editorial Team will locate an external expert reviewer who is available to assess the chosen article once it has been determined that it fits the Journal's scope and has been given peer review approval. The paper will then be forwarded to the respective Associate Editors for internal evaluation. Generally the majority of articles require a minimum of two reviews. It is possible for articles to be sent to several potential reviewers before the necessary number is attained.

4. Peer Review in Progress

Peer reviewers are usually given 2 weeks to submit their review of the article. If at all the reviewer withdraws from the process, the Editorial Team will begin the reviewer selection process again or reassign a reviewer for the particular article.

5. Editor Decision in progress

When the article has received the minimum number of reviews required to make a decision, the Editor will take into account the expert reviewers’ opinions to make an informed decision of accept, reject or revise.

6. In Production

The Production Editor will email the corresponding author with a timeline and a link to a platform called In Production where you can keep track of your article's progress once it has been accepted. After the article has passed the final quality checks and been moved into Production, it will be processed for publication.

TIME PERIOD

Although it is the intention to complete the peer review process as quickly as possible, please keep in mind that reviewers volunteer their time, so there may be times when several reviewers must be invited before the necessary number can be arranged or when a reviewer fails to deliver a review and the process must restart. Usually, it takes a week to reach the first decision.

ARTICLE PROVENANCE

MM Publishers is committed to transparency. Every article we publish includes a description of its provenance (commissioned or not commissioned) and whether it was internally or externally peer reviewed. Articles described as ‘internally peer reviewed’ will be assessed by one or more of the journal’s editors.

PEER REVIEW TERMS AND CONDITIONS/ good practices

Peer reviewers play a mainstream and pivotal role in the peer-review process. International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation requests that all reviewers strictly adhere to a set of basic principles and standards during the peer-review process in research publication; these are set out below. Kindly follow the mentioned instructions carefully before you submit a review, as, by agreeing to be a reviewer for journals, you are acknowledging that you agree to and accept these conditions. These conditions are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which also provides further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review.

Conflicts of interest

We would ask authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest (which could be of a personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious nature) during the review process so that editors can consider them and bear them in mind when making choices. Before you compose your review, please notify the editorial staff of any significant problems involving possibly conflicting interests. Additionally, reviewers shouldn't agree to look through a manuscript simply to have a glimpse of it without planning to provide a review.

The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:

Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organisational unit in the past 3 years
Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the author (s) or being supervised/having been supervised by the author(s)
Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
Having a personal relationship (e.g. family, close friend) with the author(s)
Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed
It is not considered a Conflict of Interest if the reviewers have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project (e.g. EU or DARPA) or if they have co-organized an event (e.g PC co-chairs).

Integrity

During the review process, wherein an environment of uncertainty exists about which news and which experts to trust, integrity in peer review is vital to the quality and accuracy of our published research as expected to maintain good research conduct and support research integrity. We adhere to following the integrity guidelines from National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human Subjects from ICMR to maintain a culture that nurtures good practice and where honest and ethical conduct of science is an expected norm. In order to create a research environment where people and organisations are empowered and enabled to own the research process, individual acts must adhere to the principles of honesty, rigour, transparency and open communication. A key component of the International Journal of Social Rehabilitation's success goal is the promotion of an open and honest research culture, which permeates everyone's actions and activities.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to journals are authors’ private, confidential property; reviewers should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. If you do choose to discuss the manuscript and/or your review with a professional colleague whose input you request as part of your review process, you are responsible for ensuring that they are made fully aware of the confidential nature of the discussion and that they must not disclose any information about the manuscript until the article is published. The identity of any co-reviewer and any potential conflicting or competing interests they may have must be disclosed when submitting your review. Reviewers should not retain the manuscript for personal use and should destroy copies after submitting their review.

Timeliness

If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you are able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame. If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome

Scientific misconduct

If you have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article; please do let the journal Editor know.

feedback

As a reviewer you must provide a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope.

Ownership of your review

You will remain the owner of the review you submit to us. It is your responsibility to ensure that you obtain the consent of any co-reviewer or other third party who may have contributed to your review.

In submitting your review to Int J of Soc Rehab you are agreeing to license your work to us so that we may use it for the purposes outlined below.

Open peer review

In International Journal of Social Rehabilitation we use open peer review process, meaning that:

Reviewers are required to sign reviews with their name, position and institution
any conflict of interests should be declared
reviews will be published online alongside the authors’ original versions and replies to the reviewers’ comments if the article is published.

During the peer review process, confidentiality is expected of all authors and reviewers. In an open peer review procedure, authors and reviewers can speak with each other directly. All queries must be addressed to the relevant journal's editorial department. If the need arises, reviewers should get in touch with the editorial office in a discreet manner, such as if they have questions about publication ethics.

In rare cases, we may consider after careful consideration that certain portions of the prepublication record should not be made public. In the case of stigmatised illnesses, for example, we seek to protect the confidentiality of reviewers who have these illnesses. In other scenarios, legal or regulatory considerations may make it inadvisable or legally questionable to make certain parts of the prepublication record available.

In all cases where we have determined that elements of the prepublication record should not be made public, we expect authors to respect our decisions and not share this information.

Our use of your review

Depending on the editorial policy of the journal, we provide the potential to gain additional classified information remarks to the editor. Unless the reviewer has been promised confidentiality, reviews are usually routed to authors and other reviewers in their entirety when an editorial decision is made. Reviews should be civil and constructive, and editors reserve the right to edit or remove any inappropriate comments.

Authors are given the option of nominating other journals from MM Publishers which they would like their manuscript transferred if it is rejected for publication by their first choice. This may result in the paper being resubmitted to other journals from MM Publishers in succession. If the author of the manuscript you reviewed has taken up this option, your review will be passed on to the editor(s) of the nominated journal(s) along with the manuscript and you might be invited to review a revised version. If the article is selected for publication in another journal from MM Publishers, your review may also be published (depending on the editorial policy of the journal in question). You will be contacted for your permission before this happens.

For more information on reviewing for International Journal of Social Rehabilitation

, please read their reviewer guidelines.

Restrictions on your use of your review

We keep the author's manuscript confidential until it is published and do not confine the use of your review once it is published. You must not reveal any information about an unpublished manuscript, including your analysis of it.

Please keep in mind that if the article is not published, you may refer to the journal that requested your review and the fact that you reviewed an article for them. You should not, however, post any details about the article that was reviewed or any part of the review that would violate the confidentiality agreement under which the article was provided to you for review.

Your registration details

We record the details on the database for the journal you register to review for. We also take your permission to hold your details on the reviewer databases for other journals from MM Publishers with similar content. If you agree to this, you may opt out at any time by emailing the editorial office of the journal you registered to review for.