Guide for Reviewers

Reviewers advise the editors and help authors improve their work through independent, evidence-based and respectful assessments. The handling editor makes the publication decision.

Confidentiality and competing interests

Manuscripts, data and reviews are confidential. Do not share or discuss them with others without the editor's permission. Do not upload unpublished material to external AI systems when confidentiality cannot be assured; see the AI policy. Before accepting, disclose financial, institutional, personal, supervisory or collaborative relationships that may affect impartiality. Decline the invitation if you cannot provide an independent assessment or have insufficient expertise, and tell the editor promptly if a conflict becomes apparent later.

Timing and report

Respond to the invitation promptly. The target period for an accepted external review is 3 weeks; contact the editor as soon as possible if you cannot meet it. Complete the OJS evaluation form and give a clear recommendation to the editor, with a constructive explanation for the authors. Keep confidential comments to the editor separate from comments intended for authors. Substantiate criticisms and address the research and its evidence, not the people who wrote it.

Points to evaluate

  • Originality, relevance to invasive physiotherapy and musculoskeletal medicine, and contribution to knowledge or practice.
  • Suitability of the study design, ethical approval and consent, registration and reporting where applicable.
  • Methods and analyses described clearly enough to judge their validity and reproducibility; appropriate handling of bias and limitations.
  • Results and conclusions supported by the data, with a balanced interpretation and no unsupported claims.
  • Clarity of title, abstract, keywords, structure, writing, tables and figures.
  • Accuracy, relevance and completeness of citations and references.
  • Possible substantial overlap with published or submitted work, with specific references or evidence for the editor.

Identify major issues separately from minor corrections and explain which changes are essential. If you become aware of possible misconduct or a confidentiality breach, alert the editor privately without conducting an independent investigation. The review follows the journal's Peer Review Policy.