Peer Review Process

Guidelines for Double-Blind Peer Reviews
The review process at the Kinesiology and Physiotherapy Comprehensive (KPC) is double-blind, which means that neither the reviewer's nor the author's names are ever revealed to the other party.

 

 

1. Submission

Authors must make sure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not reveal their identity in order to facilitate the double-blind review. Please make sure the following when submitting to KPC to assist with this preparation:

Send the Blinded Manuscript without author information and the Title Page with author information as two separate files.
Details to help you create the title page

This should contain the title, the names and affiliations of the authors, and the full address, including phone and email numbers, of the corresponding author.

Information to aid in the Blinded Manuscript preparation

There are other measures that must be followed to make sure the paper is properly prepared for double-blind peer review, in addition to the obvious requirement to remove names and affiliations from the manuscript's title. The following are the crucial things that must be followed in order to facilitate this process:

When referencing earlier work by the Authors, use the third person. For example, in place of any statements like "as we have shown before," write "... has been shown before [Anonymous, 2007]".
Make sure that no affiliation-related identifiers are present in the figures.
Limit self-references to articles that are pertinent to the people assessing the submitted paper, but do not remove necessary self-references or other references.
Cite the author's works in the text as follows: "[Anonymous, 2007]".
For blinding, write "[Anonymous 2007] Information withheld for double-blind reviewing" in the reference list.
Don't mention financing sources anywhere.
Please omit the acknowledgments.
File names should not contain any identifying information, such as author names, and document properties should similarly be anonymous.

2. The Initial Evaluation

The manuscript will go through an initial assessment to check the manuscript topic in relation to the journal's goals and scope, grammar quality, and the four prerequisite criteria mentioned above.

3. Peer review

Following clearing the initial inspection, the manuscript will be examined by two experts in the field to assure the quality of their suggestions and comments.

In addition to our reviewer criteria, we also urge our reviewers to access manuscripts using a checklist, such as the Publons checklist or another checklist tailored to the type of publication.

The reviewer checklist is compiled and updated frequently at the link below:

1. Publons Reviewer Guidelines

2. Other check-lists to consider

The reviewer has the option of either rejecting the article or offering comments on a proposal and providing clarification on any portions of the article that were delegated to them.

The reviewers' questions and inquiries will be answered by the writers for a period of seven days before they must resubmit their work to the system. The reviewer will check the text once more before making their final determination (Accept/Reject/Revisions Needed).

4. The Editorial Procedure

The article will then be given to the editor for a final proofread and editing procedure if it has made it through the reviewing phase. Before the article is converted to the pdf galley and published on the website, the author must approve the final version for publications and add or amend small portions of the piece depending on the editor's suggestions.