988368

1. General Principles

The Iranian Rehabilitation Journal (IRJ), as a member of Negah Journals, is owned and published by the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences and co-published by Negah Scientific Publisher. IRJ is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, transparent, and timely peer-review process as an essential component of scholarly quality assurance.
The Journal follows applicable recommendations and ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the publication ethics and peer-review principles adopted by Negah Scientific Publisher.
Peer review assists the editors in evaluating the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, ethical acceptability, validity, and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Editorial and peer-review decisions are based on scholarly merit and relevance to the aims and scope of IRJ and are independent of financial, institutional, commercial, or personal considerations.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. The Editor-in-Chief and/or at least two members of the Editorial Team may participate in this initial assessment, as appropriate.
During this stage, manuscripts are assessed for:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of IRJ;

• Compliance with the Journal’s submission requirements and policies;

• Originality and potential contribution to rehabilitation research and practice;

• Minimum scientific and methodological quality;

• Consistency among the study design, methods, results, tables, figures, and conclusions;

• Appropriate sampling and sample-size considerations, where applicable;

• Ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;

• Clinical trial registration, where required;

• Compliance with appropriate reporting guidelines;

• Appropriate and relevant use of the scientific literature; and

• Overall clarity and quality of presentation.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the Journal’s scope, have substantial methodological or ethical deficiencies, fail to meet minimum scientific standards, or are otherwise unsuitable for IRJ may be rejected without external peer review.
Editorials, Letters to the Editor, invited contributions, and other content that does not require external peer review may be assessed editorially. Editorial assessment of such content is distinct from external peer review.

3. Peer Review Model

IRJ uses a double-anonymous peer-review model for manuscripts undergoing external peer review. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
Authors should prepare their manuscripts according to the Journal’s anonymization requirements and avoid including unnecessary information in the anonymized manuscript that directly identifies the authors or their institutions.
The Journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed when authors may be identifiable through the subject matter, citations, datasets, trial registrations, preprints, or other publicly available information.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area, methodology, or both.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their relevant expertise, scholarly experience, independence, and ability to provide a fair and constructive assessment. Editors should avoid selecting reviewers whose relationships with the authors, institutions, research, or subject matter may create a significant conflict of interest.
An additional reviewer may be invited when the initial reviewers substantially disagree, when specialist expertise is required, or when the Associate/Handling Editor considers that another independent assessment is necessary.
For studies involving specialized or complex methodology, IRJ may additionally seek assessment from a methodological, statistical, or other specialist reviewer.

5. Peer Review Process

The peer-review process begins with manuscript submission, followed by an initial technical and editorial screening. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for compliance with the Journal’s requirements, relevance to the aims and scope of IRJ, ethical considerations, and minimum scientific and methodological quality. Manuscripts that successfully pass this initial assessment are assigned to an appropriate Associate/Handling Editor for further evaluation.
Eligible manuscripts are then sent for external double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. After the reviewer reports are received, the Associate/Handling Editor evaluates the comments and recommendations together with the manuscript and makes an editorial recommendation. Depending on the outcome, authors may be asked to revise the manuscript and provide a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers and editors.
Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, may be returned to the original reviewers or sent for additional peer review. This process may continue until the relevant scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial concerns have been adequately addressed.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief. Manuscripts that are accepted proceed to production, copyediting, typesetting, proof preparation, and publication.

6. Peer Review Process Flowchart

The IRJ Peer Review Process Flowchart provides a visual overview of the manuscript evaluation pathway from submission to publication.
The standard pathway includes manuscript submission; initial technical and editorial screening; assessment of scope, ethics, and scientific quality; assignment to an Associate/Handling Editor; selection of at least two independent external reviewers; double-anonymous peer review; editorial assessment of reviewer reports; editorial decision; author revision where required; re-evaluation and/or additional peer review where necessary; final editorial decision by the Editor-in-Chief; and, for accepted manuscripts, production and publication.
At any stage before acceptance, a manuscript may be rejected if substantial scientific, methodological, ethical, integrity, or scope-related concerns are identified. Additional methodological, statistical, ethical, or specialist assessment may also be requested at any stage when necessary.
 

7. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, respectfully, and within the agreed timeframe. Their assessments should assist editors in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve the scientific quality, accuracy, and clarity of their manuscripts.
Depending on the nature and design of the study, reviewers should consider:

• Importance and originality of the research question;

• Relevance to rehabilitation, disability, functional outcomes, and the aims and scope of IRJ;

• Appropriateness of the study design;

• Adequacy of sampling and sample-size determination;

• Appropriateness and validity of outcome measures and instruments;

• Accuracy and appropriateness of statistical or qualitative analyses;

• Consistency among the abstract, methods, results, tables, figures, and conclusions;

• Compliance with relevant reporting guidelines;

• Ethical approval, informed consent, and trial registration, where applicable;

• Whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the results;

• Relevance and appropriateness of the cited literature; and

• Overall scientific value and clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish major scientific concerns from optional recommendations for improvement and should provide sufficiently specific comments to allow editors and authors to understand the basis of their assessment.
Personal criticism, hostile or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, or comments unrelated to the scientific evaluation of the manuscript are not acceptable.

8. Methodological and Statistical Review

IRJ recognizes that some manuscripts require specialized methodological or statistical assessment in addition to conventional subject-matter peer review.
The Associate/Handling Editor may request additional methodological or statistical review for randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, diagnostic accuracy studies, psychometric studies, prediction models, studies involving complex statistical analyses or large datasets, and other research designs requiring specialized expertise.
Methodological or statistical review supplements rather than replaces subject-matter peer review. The purpose is to ensure that the methods and analyses are sufficiently rigorous to support the conclusions presented in the manuscript.
Ethics committee approval or compliance with a reporting checklist does not, by itself, establish the scientific or methodological validity of a study.

9. Reporting Guidelines

IRJ requires authors to follow internationally recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to their study design when an established guideline is available. Editors and reviewers should consider compliance with these guidelines as part of manuscript evaluation.
Relevant guidelines may include CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies, CARE for case reports, COREQ or SRQR for qualitative research, TRIPOD for prediction models, CHEERS for health economic evaluations, and ARRIVE for animal research.
Where appropriate, authors may be asked to provide the relevant reporting checklist, flow diagram, protocol, trial registration information, or other supporting documentation.
Compliance with a reporting guideline does not replace critical scientific assessment. Editors and reviewers remain responsible for evaluating whether the study design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting are scientifically appropriate.

10. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential and must be treated as privileged communications. Reviewers must not share, distribute, publicly discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, professional, academic, competitive, or commercial advantage.
Ideas, methods, data, results, figures, or other information obtained through peer review must not be appropriated or used before publication.
If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague, trainee, or another individual in preparing a review, prior permission from the Journal should be obtained. Any individual who contributes substantially to the review should be identified to the Journal and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.
Editors, Editorial Board members, editorial staff, and others involved in the editorial process must similarly protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and decisions.

11. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers should disclose any financial, professional, academic, institutional, personal, or other relationship or activity that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their assessment of a manuscript.
A reviewer should decline an invitation when a significant conflict of interest prevents an independent and objective assessment. Potential conflicts may include recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors, direct professional competition, close personal relationships, significant institutional relationships, financial interests related to the research, or direct involvement in the work under review.
The existence of a relationship does not automatically constitute a disqualifying conflict. When uncertain, reviewers should disclose the situation to the editor, who will determine whether participation in the review is appropriate.
Editors and Editorial Board members should similarly recuse themselves from handling manuscripts when relevant relationships or activities could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, editorial independence.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must comply with the IRJ Artificial Intelligence Policy and protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary materials, unpublished data, or substantial portions of manuscript content into publicly accessible or external artificial intelligence systems when confidentiality, data protection, copyright, or appropriate control over the submitted material cannot be assured.
Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer’s own scientific assessment, critical judgment, or responsibility for the review. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, fairness, and appropriateness of the comments submitted under their name.
Any permitted use of AI-assisted technology should comply with the Journal’s dedicated Artificial Intelligence Policy.

13. Citation Recommendations and Citation Ethics

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are genuinely necessary to improve the scientific accuracy, context, interpretation, or completeness of a manuscript.
Reviewers should not request citation of their own publications, articles from IRJ, or articles from another particular journal unless the suggested references are scientifically relevant and materially improve the manuscript.
Coercive citation, citation manipulation, citation padding, citation stacking, or recommendations intended primarily to increase citations to a reviewer, journal, institution, research group, or other entity are not acceptable.
Authors are not required to add a suggested reference solely because a reviewer has requested it when the reference is not scientifically relevant. The Associate/Handling Editor should evaluate disputed citation requests where necessary.

14. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. Editorial decisions are not based simply on a numerical vote among reviewers.
The Associate/Handling Editor evaluates the reviewer reports together with the manuscript, authors’ responses, methodological considerations, ethical requirements, relevance to the Journal, and overall scientific merit and makes an editorial recommendation.
When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, invite an additional independent reviewer, obtain methodological or statistical assessment, or make a reasoned recommendation based on the available evidence.
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers do not have independent authority to accept or reject manuscripts.

15. Editorial Decisions and Revision

Following editorial assessment and peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept;

• Minor Revision;

• Major Revision; or

• Reject.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance. Authors should respond systematically to reviewer and editor comments and provide a detailed point-by-point response indicating how each issue has been addressed.
When authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they may provide a clear and scientifically reasoned explanation. Authors are not expected to accept reviewer suggestions that are scientifically inappropriate or unsupported.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated editorially depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. The number of review rounds is determined by the scientific and editorial needs of the manuscript rather than by a predetermined number of cycles.

16. Timeliness of Peer Review

IRJ seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining scientific rigor. Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to invitations and submit their reports within the agreed review period.
The duration of the peer-review process may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number and extent of revision rounds, specialist assessments, and author responsiveness.
The Journal aims to complete the peer-review process within approximately 2–4 months where practicable. This timeframe represents an editorial target rather than a guarantee.
Authors requested to revise a manuscript should normally submit their revision within the deadline specified in the editorial decision letter. Reasonable extensions may be granted upon request.

17. Suspected Research or Publication Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, or another potential form of research or publication misconduct, the concern should be communicated confidentially to the editor with sufficient supporting information where possible.
Reviewers should not independently contact the authors, their institutions, research participants, or other third parties regarding suspected misconduct.
IRJ will assess such concerns in accordance with its Principles of Publishing Ethics, applicable COPE guidance, and relevant publisher policies. Additional information may be requested from the authors or other appropriate parties, and serious concerns may be referred to the relevant institution or competent authority when justified.

18. Reviewer Misconduct

IRJ takes concerns regarding reviewer conduct seriously. Potential reviewer misconduct includes breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, appropriation of authors’ ideas or data, impersonation, manipulation of peer review, coercive citation, discriminatory or abusive comments, intentional misrepresentation, or deliberate delay for competitive advantage.
When credible concerns arise, the Journal may investigate the matter in accordance with applicable COPE guidance and the ethical principles of IRJ and Negah Scientific Publisher.
Appropriate action may include discontinuing the reviewer’s involvement, disregarding inappropriate review material, restricting future reviewing activity, or contacting the reviewer’s institution or another competent authority when serious misconduct is substantiated.

19. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, or other individuals closely associated with IRJ are not exempt from the Journal’s scientific, ethical, and peer-review requirements.
Such manuscripts should be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The author must not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer information, or influence the editorial decision concerning the manuscript.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or has a relevant conflict of interest, responsibility for the manuscript and final editorial decision should be delegated to an appropriately qualified independent editor.
The Journal maintains appropriate separation between an individual’s editorial role and the assessment of that individual’s scholarly work.

20. Appeals and Complaints Concerning Peer Review

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or significant problem in the peer-review process may submit a reasoned appeal in accordance with the Journal’s complaints and appeals procedures.
An appeal should identify specific scientific or procedural grounds for reconsideration rather than merely expressing disagreement with the editorial decision. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.
Where appropriate, an appeal may be evaluated by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision.
Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, editorial handling, or other aspects of peer review will be considered according to IRJ publication ethics policies and applicable COPE guidance.

21. Editorial Independence and Financial Considerations

Editorial and peer-review decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges, institutional relationships, sponsorship, advertising, commercial interests, or other financial considerations.
Reviewers and editors assess manuscripts solely on scholarly, methodological, ethical, and editorial grounds. Eligibility or obligation to pay an Article Processing Charge does not influence whether a manuscript is sent for review, revised, accepted, or rejected.
The scientific and editorial responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board remain independent of the administrative, technical, and publishing services provided by the owner, publisher, or co-publisher.

22. Post-Publication Responsibility

Peer review does not end the Journal’s responsibility for the integrity of published content. Credible concerns regarding scientific reliability, research ethics, authorship, peer review, or research integrity may be investigated after publication.
Where necessary, IRJ may publish a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another appropriate update in accordance with its Principles of Publishing Ethics, CrossMark Policy, and applicable COPE guidance.
The Journal may also review the editorial and peer-review history of a published article when concerns suggest that the original assessment process may have been compromised.

23. Peer Review Records

IRJ maintains appropriate records of the editorial and peer-review process in accordance with its editorial procedures and applicable requirements.
These records may include submitted manuscript versions, reviewer reports, authors’ responses, editorial correspondence, and decision records. Peer-review records are treated confidentially and may be consulted when necessary to address legitimate questions concerning the editorial history or integrity of an article.

24. Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

IRJ, as a member of Negah Journals and a journal co-published by Negah Scientific Publisher, is committed to applying the relevant codes, standards, and principles of responsible scholarly publishing adopted by the publisher.
These resources support authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff in understanding their responsibilities throughout manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication processes.
The following Negah Journals resources should be consulted where applicable:

• Negah Principles on Publication Ethics

• Negah Guidelines and Flowcharts on Publication Ethics

• Negah Standards for Authors

• Negah Standards for Editors

• Negah Policies and Guidelines of Peer Review

• Negah Ethical Principles for Medical Research

• Negah Policies on Conflict of Interest

These publisher resources complement the dedicated policies of IRJ. Where an IRJ policy provides additional or journal-specific requirements, the IRJ policy should be followed together with the applicable publisher guidance.

25. International Standards and Related IRJ Policies

IRJ’s peer-review practices are informed by internationally recognized standards and guidance, particularly those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Reviewers, editors, and authors are encouraged to consult current authoritative guidance concerning responsible peer review, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, research integrity, publication ethics, and editorial responsibilities.
This Peer Review Policy should be read together with the IRJ Principles of Publishing Ethics, Instructions for Authors, Conflict of Interest Policy, Artificial Intelligence Policy, Ethical Principles for Medical and Human Research, CrossMark Policy, and other applicable Journal policies.
IRJ applies these Journal-specific policies together with the relevant principles and educational resources of Negah Journals and Negah Scientific Publisher and current internationally recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing.