International Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain Prevention

Peer Review Process

Peer-Review Model

IJMPP uses double-blind peer review. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Initial Administrative Check

Following submission, the editorial office checks:

• Completeness of submission files
• Manuscript anonymization
• Author metadata
• Required ethical declarations
• Reporting guideline documentation
• Trial registration, when applicable
• File readability and technical compliance

Incomplete submissions may be returned to authors before editorial assessment.

Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor evaluates:

• Relevance to the Aims and Scope
• Scientific importance
• Originality
• Methodological quality
• Ethical compliance
• Reporting quality
• Language and readability
• Potential contribution to the journal's readership
• Similarity with previously published material

Manuscripts may be rejected without external peer review if they are outside the journal's scope, methodologically unsuitable, ethically unacceptable, insufficiently original, inadequately reported, or unlikely to make a meaningful contribution.

Number and Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.

Reviewers are selected according to:

• Relevant subject or methodological expertise
• Recent scholarly activity
• Ability to provide an objective assessment
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest
• Review quality
• Institutional and geographical diversity where possible

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship that could reasonably influence their judgment and decline the invitation when objective review is not possible.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviews, and editorial correspondence are confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not:

• Share submitted material without authorization
• Use unpublished information for personal advantage
• Contact authors directly
• Delegate reviews without editorial permission
• Upload confidential manuscript materials to unauthorized artificial intelligence systems

Review Criteria

Reviewers should assess:

• Relevance to journal scope
• Originality
• Scientific importance
• Research design
• Sampling
• Methods
• Statistical analysis
• Ethical conduct
• Reporting completeness
• Interpretation
• Limitations
• References
• Language and presentation
• Consistency among objectives, methods, results, and conclusions

Editorial Decisions

Possible decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it automatically.

The Editor-in-Chief or responsible independent editor makes the final decision.

Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

When reviews conflict, the editor may:

• Assess the basis of disagreement
• Request clarification
• Invite an additional reviewer
• Request methodological or statistical review
• Make an editorial decision based on the total evidence

Revised Manuscripts

Authors should submit:

• A clean revised manuscript
• A marked or tracked-changes version
• A point-by-point response to reviewers
• Updated supplementary documentation when necessary

Review Timeline

IJMPP aims to communicate the first editorial decision within approximately 8–12 weeks after receipt of a complete manuscript.

This is a target and not a guarantee. Actual processing times may vary according to manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, or their close collaborators are assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

The conflicted individual must not:

• Select reviewers
• Access confidential reviewer identities
• Participate in editorial discussions
• Influence the decision

Appeals

Authors may appeal when they believe that a significant factual, procedural, ethical, or interpretive error materially affected the editorial decision.

Appeals are handled according to the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.