Peer Review Policy
The decision to publish a paper in TRJ is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially, all papers are assessed by an editorial committee of two or more editorial team members. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.
Editorials and Letters may be accepted at this stage but in all other cases, the decision is to reject the paper or to send it for peer review. The Papers that do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example, because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions to assist the editors in deciding whether to send it out for review. Authors can expect a decision from this stage of the review process within 1–2 weeks of submission.
Manuscripts going forward to the review process undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers, under the supervision of the journal editor and the editor-in-chief. We aim to complete the review process within 4-8 weeks of the decision to review. However, delays occasionally happen, and authors should allow at least 6 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance. You may find the journal’s article reviewing procedure, below.
Editorial Decision and Revision
All the articles, reviews and communications published in TRJ journals go through the peer-review process and receive at least two reviews. The in-house editor will communicate the decision of the academic editor, which will be one of the following:
Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given 7 days for minor revisions.
Resubmit after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within 2 weeks, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. Suppose the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months. In that case, we will recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.
Reject and Encourage Resubmission: If additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.
Reject: The article has serious flaws, and/or makes no original significant contribution. No offer of resubmission to the journal is provided.
All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.
Author Appeals & Complaints Process
The Rehabilitation Journal is dedicated to ensuring a fair, transparent, and accountable editorial process. The Appeals and Complaints Policy provides clear procedures for addressing issues such as delays, misjudgments, and ethical concerns. Appeals involve requests from authors to reconsider editorial decisions when they believe there has been unfairness, bias, or inaccuracies in the review process. Complaints, on the other hand, pertain to dissatisfaction with the editorial process itself, such as ethical violations, conflicts of interest, or delays in manuscript handling.
Authors and readers who wish to submit an appeal or complaint must do so in writing, either via email or post. Appeals must include a detailed explanation addressing specific reviewer comments or editorial decisions. Complaints should clearly outline the issue and, if applicable, include supporting evidence. Authors must use the designated appeal form; otherwise, their submission will not be considered. Appeals must be submitted within three months of receiving a rejection, ensuring the process is efficient and time-bound.
Once an appeal is submitted, the Chief Editor forwards the manuscript, along with relevant information, to a designated Editorial Board Member, ensuring the case is reviewed impartially. The Editorial Board Member assesses the appeal and may recommend either acceptance, further peer review, or upholding the original decision. While their input is crucial, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. This decision is conclusive, meaning no further appeals will be accepted at this stage, ensuring clarity and closure in the process.
Complaints are similarly reviewed by the Editorial Board, and in complex cases, external experts may be consulted. The Journal ensures that confidentiality is maintained throughout the process to protect all parties involved. Acknowledgment of the complaint is sent within three working days, and responses are typically provided within two weeks. This ensures that complaints are handled promptly and effectively, demonstrating the Journal’s commitment to timely resolutions.
The Journal categorizes complaints into areas such as plagiarism, copyright violation, falsification of research results, conflicts of interest, and bias in the review process. Authors may also file complaints regarding unusually delayed manuscript processing times, unsatisfactory peer-review comments, authorship disputes, or violations of research standards. Each complaint is seen as an opportunity to improve the Manuscript Processing System, and all complaints are addressed with professionalism, courtesy, and promptness.
Upon receiving a complaint, the Editorial team, under the guidance of the Editor-in-Chief, investigates the issue in line with established publication ethics. After the investigation, a detailed report is prepared and presented for a decision. The outcome is communicated to the complainant via their registered email. The Journal views the feedback provided through complaints as an opportunity to continually enhance its processes, ensuring that the highest standards of editorial integrity are maintained.
Production and Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo professional copy-editing, English editing, proofreading by the authors, final corrections, pagination, and publication on the TRJ website.
