Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Exact Community Health & Rehabilitation Sciences (JECH), published by EXACT RESEARCH SOLUTIONS (SMC-PRIVATE) LIMITED, maintains a rigorous double-blind peer review system to safeguard scientific integrity, objectivity, and publishing quality. Both reviewer and author identities remain strictly anonymous to each other throughout the entire evaluation workflow.

Type of Peer Review

JECH utilizes a Double-Blind Peer Review process:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity, institutional affiliations, or geographic location of the authors.

  • Authors do not know the identity or professional affiliations of the reviewers.

  • Editors enforce complete anonymity by thoroughly removing author names, acknowledgments, institutional markers, and metadata from submission files before sending them for external evaluation.

Peer Review Workflow (Step-by-Step)

Timelines are approximate and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and required revision cycles.

Step 1 — Initial Submission Check (0–3 days)

The editorial office conducts an initial administrative screening to verify:

  • Scope alignment with health, physical therapy, rehabilitation, and allied medical sciences.

  • Completeness of submission files, tables, figures, and author details.

  • Similarity screening via Turnitin or equivalent plagiarism detection tools.

  • Formatting and style compliance.

  • Ethical compliance (IRB/Ethics Committee documentation and patient informed consent statements).

Submissions failing initial technical or ethical checks are returned to authors for correction or declined.

Step 2 — Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor Screening (3–7 days)

The handling editor evaluates the submission for:

  • Methodological quality and scientific novelty.

  • Ethical integrity and adherence to international guidelines.

  • Priority and relevance to JECH’s readership.

Outcomes:

  • Forward manuscript for external peer review.

  • Request mandatory pre-review technical/structural revisions.

  • Decline prior to review (Desk Rejection). Reasons for desk rejection are formally communicated to authors.

Step 3 — Reviewer Selection (7–10 days)

The handling editor invites at least two independent expert reviewers possessing relevant subject-matter expertise in community health, rehabilitation, or physiotherapy. A third expert reviewer may be recruited if specialized technical or statistical re-evaluation is necessary. Invited reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment.

Step 4 — Double-Blind Peer Review (14–21 days)

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript regarding:

  • Study design, clinical validity, and methodological soundness.

  • Statistical analysis and data interpretation accuracy.

  • Originality, scientific rigor, and clinical significance.

  • Ethical compliance and research integrity.

  • Relevance and currency of literature citations.

  • Organization, clarity, and overall quality of presentation.

Reviewers provide:

  • Detailed narrative feedback and constructive commentary for the authors.

  • Confidential remarks and evaluations for the handling editor.

  • Formal editorial recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit for Review, or Reject.

Step 5 — Editorial Decision (within 5 days of receiving reviews)

The handling editor synthesizes the peer reviewers' evaluations and issues a formal decision letter via the OJS platform. Decision letters include anonymized reviewer comments, specific revision guidelines, and a defined resubmission deadline.

Step 6 — Revision Process (7–21 days)

When revisions are requested, authors must:

  • Thoroughly address every reviewer comment and editorial point.

  • Submit a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document providing point-by-point explanations.

  • Upload a highlighted/tracked-changes version alongside a clean revised manuscript.

Revised submissions may be returned to the original or new reviewers for re-evaluation.

Step 7 — Final Decision (3–7 days)

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the revised files against reviewer expectations and scientific standards.

Possible final outcomes:

  • Accept

  • Accept after minor edits

  • Reject

Step 8 — Production & Publication

Accepted manuscripts move to the production phase, undergoing:

  • Copyediting and language refinement.

  • Professional typesetting and galley proof generation.

  • Final author review and proof approval.

  • Immediate open-access publication on the official OJS journal system.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Scientific Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, fair, and constructive scientific feedback.

  • Critically evaluate study design, analytical methods, and data validity.

  • Highlight missing, incomplete, or inaccurate literature citations.

  • Alert the editorial office to potential ethical issues, data manipulation, or duplicate publication.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscript contents and review materials.

  • Promptly declare any financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest.

  • Refrain from utilizing manuscript findings or data for personal or institutional benefit.

  • Follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

  • Immediately report suspected plagiarism, improper authorship, or research misconduct to the handling editor.

AI & Confidentiality

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading, pasting, or processing any part of a submitted manuscript (including text, data, or figures) into generative AI models, automated language software, or third-party online platforms. Uploading manuscript details to unverified online tools compromises confidentiality and intellectual property rights.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors must:

  • Ensure unbiased, objective, and timely peer review.

  • Maintain complete confidentiality of author and reviewer information.

  • Base all editorial decisions strictly on scientific quality, methodological rigor, and relevance.

  • Transparently manage conflicts of interest.

  • Adhere strictly to the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors and ICMJE Recommendations.

  • Address formal appeals, corrections, or ethical complaints in a professional, systematic manner.

Editorial Independence (Board/Editor Submissions Handling)

To prevent bias and maintain absolute editorial independence, submissions authored by editors, Editorial Board members, or active reviewers undergo an independent handling pathway. Such individuals are entirely recused from the review process, editorial discussions, decision-making, and access to reviewer metadata for their own manuscripts. JECH enforces these separation protocols to minimize endogeny and protect peer-review integrity.

Plagiarism & Ethical Screening

Prior to external peer review, every manuscript submitted to JECH undergoes mandatory screening:

  • Plagiarism and similarity checking via Turnitin or equivalent detection software.

  • Formal ethics compliance check (verifying IRB approval protocol details and informed consent statements).

  • Assessment of data presentation and scientific integrity.

Manuscripts displaying unoriginal text or similarity indices exceeding 15% (excluding standard reference lists) are evaluated under general editor-discretion criteria and may be rejected immediately.

Appeals & Complaints Policy

Authors who believe a rejection decision resulted from a direct factual error or reviewer oversight may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief at Admin@jech.exactresolution.com.

  • The appeal must present explicit scientific counter-arguments and concrete supporting evidence.

  • Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or independent board member who was not involved in the original decision.

  • Final appeal decisions are communicated within 2 to 4 weeks.

  • General editorial complaints regarding review conduct or handling are processed in strict accordance with COPE guidelines.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, data files, peer reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as strictly confidential materials. Information is not shared beyond the handling editorial team and assigned peer reviewers.

Peer Review Transparency

To maintain complete transparency and public trust, JECH:

  • Publicly details its double-blind peer review framework on its official platform.

  • Clearly defines all editorial decision categories and expectations.

  • Outlines procedural review timelines for authors.

  • Publicly lists Editorial Board members and their institutional affiliations.

Special Issues & Guest Editors

For special issues or guest-edited thematic collections, JECH applies identical peer-review standards, double-blind evaluation protocols, and quality standards as regular biannual issues. Guest editor submissions are handled through independent editorial pathways. The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate authority and oversight regarding the quality, ethics, and formal acceptance of all published content. Special issue articles are explicitly designated as such upon publication.