Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (JHRS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, integrity, transparency, and ethical publishing. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly work that contributes to the advancement of health sciences, rehabilitation sciences, disability studies, special education, psychology, social policy, and related disciplines.
Peer Review Model
JHRS operates a double-blind peer-review system, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. This approach aims to ensure an impartial, objective, and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts.
Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:
•    Relevance to the aims and scope of JHRS;
•    Originality and scientific merit;
•    Compliance with the journal’s author guidelines;
•    Ethical considerations and approvals;
•    Language quality and presentation;
•    Similarity and plagiarism screening.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).
External Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant field.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate:
•    Originality and novelty of the research;
•    Scientific significance and contribution to the field;
•    Methodological rigor and appropriateness;
•    Statistical analysis and interpretation of results;
•    Clarity and organization of the manuscript;
•    Adequacy of references and literature review;
•    Ethical compliance;
•    Overall suitability for publication in JHRS.
Additional reviewers may be invited when the editorial team considers it necessary.
Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may reach one of the following decisions:
1.    Accept without revisions;
2.    Accept with minor revisions;
3.    Major revisions required;
4.    Resubmit for review;
5.    Reject.
The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.
Revision Process
Authors receiving a revision request should submit:
•    A revised version of the manuscript;
•    A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments;
•    A marked version highlighting all modifications made.
Failure to adequately address reviewers’ comments may result in rejection of the manuscript.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
•    Maintain confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts;
•    Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations;
•    Declare any conflicts of interest;
•    Complete reviews within the requested timeframe;
•    Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors;
•    Alert editors to potential ethical concerns, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to JHRS are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors may not disclose any information regarding submissions to third parties without authorization from the Editorial Office.
Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the review or editorial decision-making process for the affected manuscript.
Ethical Standards
JHRS adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics principles and expects all participants in the publication process to comply with the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and responsible conduct of research.
Review Timeline
JHRS strives to provide authors with an initial editorial decision within approximately 6–8 weeks following submission. However, review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
Appeals
Authors who believe that a manuscript was rejected unfairly may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be evaluated independently, and additional reviewers may be consulted when deemed appropriate.
Acknowledgement of Reviewers
JHRS highly values the contributions of its reviewers, whose expertise and dedication play a crucial role in maintaining the scientific quality and credibility of the journal. The Editorial Board expresses its sincere appreciation for their voluntary service to the scholarly community.