Peer Review Policy

Review model and reviewer selection

After editorial screening, each manuscript that proceeds to peer review is normally assessed by at least two reviewers with expertise in the subject, at least one of whom is external to the Editorial Board. IPMM uses single-blind peer review: reviewers know the authors' identities, while authors do not know the reviewers' identities. The handling editor selects reviewers for their expertise and independence. Members of the International Advisory Board may review when they have no conflict. Reviewers use the journal's form and Guide for Reviewers.

Reviewer independence

As a general rule, a reviewer has not co-authored a publication with any author during the preceding three years and does not currently share an institutional affiliation with any author. A current supervisory or mentoring relationship, an ongoing collaboration, or membership in the same research group is incompatible with reviewing the manuscript. Reviewers disclose any relationship or interest before accepting an invitation, and the handling editor assesses and records the response.

In a highly specialized field, the handling editor may invite a reviewer with an older or indirect relationship only if the reviewer discloses it, the editor determines that it does not compromise impartiality, the reasons and decision are recorded in the submission file, and the other reviewer has no relationship with any author. This exception does not apply to manuscripts authored by members of the journal's Editorial Board or International Advisory Board.

Editorial stages

  1. Receipt and screening. An editor assesses the manuscript's fit with the journal's scope and basic reporting and presentation requirements. The editor may request changes or decline the manuscript before external review.
  2. External review. Manuscripts that pass screening normally receive at least two assessments under the model above. The editor may seek further expertise when reports differ or additional assessment is needed. Reviewers receive a deadline with their invitation and may request an extension.
  3. Decision and revision. The handling editor considers the manuscript and the reviewers' advice and decides whether to reject it, request changes or accept it. Authors receive the decision and relevant reports. When revision is requested, the decision letter specifies the deadline and authors provide a point-by-point response; they may request more time.
  4. Proof and publication. After acceptance, authors receive a PDF proof for corrections, mainly to formatting and typographical errors, by the deadline communicated at that stage. Following production checks, articles are published online with final citation details.

Decision criteria

Editors consider originality, relevance to invasive physiotherapy and musculoskeletal medicine, scientific and social value, methodological validity, clarity and organization. Editorial decisions are independent of sponsors and other commercial interests. An editor with a conflict delegates the manuscript to an editor without that conflict, in accordance with the Conflicts of Interest Policy. Authors may use the complaints and appeals process when appropriate.