Advances in Rehabilitation uses double-blind peer review: the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, throughout the review process. All manuscripts are submitted and handled through the Editorial Manager system.

Initial editorial assessment

Each submission is first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor designated by the Editor-in-Chief. The initial editorial assessment covers:

fit with the aims and scope of the journal;
formal compliance with the Instructions for Authors (structure of the manuscript, abstract, keywords, reference style, figures and tables, required statements);
completeness of the submission, including a separate title page and a properly anonymised (blinded) manuscript;
a similarity check performed with iThenticate;
the presence of ethics committee approval, informed consent, and clinical trial registration details, where applicable;
originality, basic methodological soundness, and quality of the English language.

The journal aims to complete the initial editorial assessment and inform the authors of its outcome (sending the manuscript for peer review, returning it for technical corrections, or desk rejection) within 1 week of submission. This time frame refers to the initial editorial assessment only; the overall time to a decision after peer review depends on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds.

Desk rejection

Following the initial assessment, the editor may: (a) send the manuscript for external peer review; (b) return it to the authors for technical corrections, without content-related analysis, if it does not conform to the editorial requirements; or (c) reject it without external review (desk rejection). A manuscript may be desk rejected if it falls outside the scope of the journal, lacks sufficient originality, scientific quality, or methodological rigour, shows substantial unattributed overlap with previously published work, or raises ethical concerns that have not been resolved. Authors of desk-rejected manuscripts receive a brief justification of the decision.

Selection of reviewers

The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with recognised expertise in the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors and must not have recently collaborated or co-published with any of the authors. Where possible, reviewers from different institutions and countries are invited.

Conflicts of interest of reviewers

When accepting an invitation, reviewers confirm that they have no competing interests in relation to the manuscript. Reviewers must decline the invitation, or inform the editor immediately, if they:

work at the same institution as any of the authors or have recently collaborated with them;
have a financial or commercial interest related to the subject of the manuscript;
are working on closely related research that could be affected by the manuscript;
are able to identify the authors despite anonymisation, and this could affect their objectivity.

If a conflict of interest is declared or identified during the review, the editor withdraws the invitation and invites another reviewer. A review prepared by a reviewer with an undisclosed conflict of interest that comes to light later is disregarded, and the manuscript is sent for additional review where necessary.

Anonymity of authors and reviewers

To ensure double-blind review, authors submit a separate title page (containing the names, affiliations and ORCID identifiers of all authors, corresponding author details, funding, acknowledgements, conflict of interest statements, and author contributions) and a blinded manuscript from which all identifying information has been removed. In particular, authors should remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements and funding information; replace the name of the ethics committee, the approval number and the trial registration number with "[blinded for review]" (full details are given on the title page); refer to their own previous work in the third person; and remove identifying information from file properties.

The editorial office checks the anonymisation before the manuscript is sent to reviewers; manuscripts that are not properly blinded are returned to the authors. Reviewers have access only to the blinded files, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors in Editorial Manager or in decision letters. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.

Evaluation and reviewer recommendations

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the journal's Peer Review Guidance and provide comments for the authors as well as, optionally, confidential comments for the editor. Each reviewer recommends one of the following: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewers' recommendations are advisory; the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial decisions and further handling of the manuscript

Acceptance – the manuscript is accepted in its current form and proceeds to language and technical editing and production; the authors receive proofs for approval before publication.
Minor revision – the authors are asked to make limited changes and submit the revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments within the deadline stated in the decision letter. The revised version is assessed by the handling editor and, if necessary, by the reviewer(s).
Major revision – substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript, with changes highlighted and a point-by-point response, is sent for re-review, as a rule to the original reviewers. A revised manuscript not submitted within the deadline may be treated as a new submission.
Rejection – the manuscript is not accepted for publication and will not be considered again in the same or a substantially similar form, unless the decision is changed as a result of an appeal.

Divergent reviewer opinions

If the reviewers' recommendations differ substantially (for example, one reviewer recommends acceptance and another rejection), the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional independent reviewer or consult a member of the Editorial Board with relevant expertise. The final decision is based on the substance of the arguments presented in the reviews, not on a simple majority of recommendations.

Revision and re-review process

Authors submit the revised manuscript with all changes clearly marked (e.g., using track changes or highlighting) and a response letter addressing every comment. After major revisions, the manuscript is re-reviewed; after minor revisions, it may be evaluated by the editor alone. As a rule, no more than two rounds of revision are conducted; if substantial concerns remain after the second round, the manuscript may be rejected.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a biased review may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief via the editorial office (office@advrehab.org) within 30 days of the decision. The appeal should explain in detail, and with scientific arguments, why the decision should be reconsidered. Appeals are handled by the Editor-in-Chief or, if the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest or was directly involved in the original decision, by another senior member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in handling the manuscript. The editor may seek the opinion of an additional independent reviewer. The authors are informed of the outcome in writing, and the decision on the appeal is final. Only one appeal per manuscript is considered, and the manuscript should not be submitted to another journal while the appeal is under consideration.

Complaints

Complaints concerning the editorial or peer review process – for example, about the handling of a manuscript, delays, or the conduct of editors or reviewers – may be submitted at any stage, both during and after the review process, to the editorial office (office@advrehab.org). Each complaint is acknowledged and investigated by the Editor-in-Chief or, if the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, by a designated member of the Editorial Board or a representative of the publisher. Complaints are handled confidentially and in line with COPE guidance and flowcharts; the complainant is informed of the outcome. If the complainant is not satisfied with the response, the matter may be referred to the publisher.

Recognition of reviewers

A list of reviewers who contributed to the journal during a given year is published annually on the journal's website.

Advances in Rehabilitation

About the journal

Editor-in-chief

All volumes and issues in this journal

Volume 40 (2026)

Volume 39 (2025)

Volume 38 (2024)

Volume 37 (2023)

Volume 36 (2022)

Volume 35 (2021)

Volume 34 (2020)

Volume 33 (2019)

Volume 32 (2018)

Volume 31 (2017)

Journal details

Publication information