OpenPhysio aims to provide prompt reviews that aim to help authors ensure that published papers are rigorous and pedagogically sound. All submissions are reviewed by the Editor and Editorial Board, who check the submission for scope, fit, quality, originality, interest for the readership. Submitted papers are then either Accepted immediately (this is rare), Rejected, or passed to an Associate Editor for Review.
We use a two phase peer review system. Authors submit their manuscripts to the journal and the Editor reviews it to determine if the submission is within the scope of the journal. The Editor then invites two reviewers to review the article. Our review process is:
- open: the reviewer reports are public and published alongside the final article
- transparent: reviewers and authors are not anonymous
- collaborative: the reviewers and authors are able to comment on each other’s work
- pre- and post-publication: reviewers comment on the document prior to acceptance, and anyone can comment afterwards
This approach to peer review means that reviewers and editors are accountable for the decisions they make, bias is reduced, novice reviewers can learn from the transparent process, and reviewers are acknowledged for their work.
Reviewers work with authors and editors on the importance, originality and scientific merit of the manuscript and suggest changes which may improve the quality and validity of the manuscript. Note that, while we encourage authors to engage constructively with the reviewers in improving the submission, the editorial team has the final say in deciding whether or not to publish the article.
Once the article is accepted, we encourage an ongoing, post-publication peer review where readers can further engage with authors around the article. This process does not affect the “Published” status of the article but does allow for readers to discuss the research directly with the authors themselves. The review process itself takes approximately 4 – 6 weeks to complete but can change depending upon the quality of the manuscript submitted, reviewers reports and the time taken by the authors to submit the revised manuscript.
We believe that this approach provides the best option for authors as it encourages them to directly engage with reviewers whose intent is to improve the submission as much as possible. It is also best for the community, as it enables an ongoing, public discussion between the author and readers around the relative impact, scope and quality of the study.