Peer Review Policy and Process

Peer Review Policy and Process

Axis Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (AJHRS)

The Axis Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (AJHRS) is dedicated to upholding the utmost standards of scientific rigor, impartiality, and scholarly integrity. This commitment is operationalized through a meticulous double-blind peer review process, which is designed to safeguard the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. This system is fundamental to eliminating potential biases, ensuring equitable treatment of all submissions, and upholding the exceptional quality and credibility of the research we publish.

Stages of the Peer Review Process:

1. Initial Editorial Screening:

  • Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary assessment conducted by the editorial office.

  • This evaluation checks for adherence to the journal's scope, formatting guidelines, and English language standards.

  • The manuscript is also screened for potential plagiarism and other obvious ethical issues using specialized software.

  • Submissions that fail to meet these fundamental criteria are returned to the authors without progression to full peer review.

2. Assignment to an Academic Editor:

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an Academic Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor with relevant subject expertise).

  • This editor conducts a further assessment of the manuscript's overall suitability, novelty, and methodological soundness before initiating the formal peer review.

3. Invitation and Selection of Peer Reviewers:

  • The Academic Editor identifies and invites a minimum of two independent external experts to review the manuscript.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their distinguished expertise, proven publication record in the relevant field, and a confirmed lack of any conflicts of interest with the authors or their work.

  • The journal maintains a diverse and extensive reviewer database and may also utilize author suggestions for potential reviewers, though the editor is not obligated to use them. All suggested reviewers are rigorously vetted to confirm their identity and appropriateness.

4. The Double-Blind Review Process:

  • Throughout the review, every effort is made to preserve the anonymity of the authors and the reviewers.

  • Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following core principles:

    • Confidentiality: Manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed with anyone else without explicit permission from the editor.

    • Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews should be objective, focused on the scholarly content, and provide respectful, constructive criticism designed to help the authors improve their work.

    • Timeliness: Reviewers are requested to complete their assessments within a stipulated timeframe. If an extension is needed or they cannot perform the review, they should notify the editor immediately.

    • Disclosure of Conflicts: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality and, if necessary, recuse themselves from the process.

5. Editorial Decision and Author Revision:

  • The Academic Editor consolidates the reviewers' comments and makes one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

  • For manuscripts requiring revision, the authors are provided with the reviewers' anonymous comments and a deadline for resubmission.

  • Authors must respond to each comment point-by-point and highlight all changes made in a revised manuscript.

6. Final Evaluation and Acceptance:

  • Revised manuscripts are typically re-evaluated. The editor may send them back to the original reviewers for confirmation that all concerns have been adequately addressed.

  • The final decision to accept a manuscript rests with the Academic Editor, based on the reviewers' recommendations and the quality of the authors' revisions.

Safeguarding Review Integrity:
AJHRS maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of peer review manipulation. To protect the integrity of the process, we:

  • Scrutinize author-suggested reviewers by verifying their institutional email addresses and publication history to prevent fraudulent recommendations.

  • Remain vigilant for signs of coordinated efforts to manipulate reviews and will initiate additional independent reviews if any suspicion arises.

  • Ensure that our editors make the final selection of reviewers, independent of author influence.

Our Commitment:
The AJHRS peer review process is the cornerstone of our mission to advance knowledge in health and rehabilitation sciences. We are committed to ensuring that it is conducted with transparency, fairness, and academic excellence. We strive for a constructive and timely evaluation that respects the work of authors and the invaluable contribution of our reviewers, ultimately ensuring the dissemination of robust and significant scientific findings.