Aims & Scope
The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation mainly focuses on presenting relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It provides readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of back and musculoskeletal disorders and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty.
In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day. Manuscripts are provided from a range of health care providers including those in physical medicine, orthopedic surgery, rheumatology, neurosurgery, physical therapy, osteopathy, chiropractic and nursing on topics ranging from chronic pain to sports medicine. Diagnostic decision trees, treatment algorithms, and emerging and state-of-the-art technologies for rehabilitation are encouraged in each manuscript. Controversial topics are discussed in commentaries and rebuttals. Associated areas such as occupational medicine, worker's compensation and practice guidelines are included.
The journal publishes original research data and research synthesis (review papers or meta-analyses). Letters to the editor, commentaries, editorials and suggestions for thematic issues and proposed manuscripts are also welcomed.
Research Group Health and Physical Activity
Saxion University of Applied Sciences
M.h. Tromplaan 28, Enschede
University Medical Center Groningen
Hanzeplein 1, Groningen
Karen Snowden Rucker
Hermie J. Hermens
Alessandro de Sire
Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine, Rehabilitation
University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia"
Marmara University School of Medicine
University Versailles Saint Quentin
Maastricht, The Netherlands
Veenendaal, The Netherlands
Baylor College of Medicine
John W. Burns
Jaap H. van Dieën
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ira M. Fiebert
University of Miami Health System
University of Oldenburg
Baylor College of Medicine
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, USA
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, United Kingdom
Charles George Kevorkian
Physician Quality Network
AEH - Corporate Health Experts
University of Nottingham
Nottingham, United Kingdom
Judith R. Meakin
University of Exeter
Exeter, United Kingdom
Istinye University Hospital Medical Park Gaziosmanpaşa
University of Miami
Coral Gables, USA
Steven H. Sanders, James A. Haley
University of Borås
Melek Güneş Yavuzer
The RECAL Legacy
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
Web of Science: Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition
Web of Science: Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition
Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a peer-reviewed journal. Articles submitted to the journal undergo a single blind peer review process. This means that the identity of the authors is known to the reviewers but the identity of the reviewers is not communicated to the authors.
All submitted manuscripts are subjected to initial appraisal by the Editorial Assistant and, if found suitable for further consideration, to rigorous peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees. Reasons to reject a paper in the pre-screening process could for example be that the work does not fall within the aims and scope, the writing is of poor quality, the instructions to authors were not followed or the presented work is not novel.
Papers deemed suitable to be reviewed will be assigned to a handling editor. The handling editor will then invite reviewers to comment on the work and might consider inviting the reviewers suggested by the author(s). Editors and reviewers are asked to excuse themselves from reviewing a submission if a conflict of interest makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. Conflicts of interest include but are not limited to: collaboration with the authors in the past three years; any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest; a history of personal differences with the author(s).
As a standard policy, decisions are based on three reviews. In some specific circumstances a minimum of two reviews may be deemed sufficient to make a decision on a paper. The Executive Editor strives to ensure a typical turnaround time of four months.
Reviewers are asked to judge a paper on at least:
- Significance to the field
- Relevance to the journal
- Data analysis
- Literature review
- Writing style/clarity
Based on the received reviews the handling editor will propose to the Executive Editor a recommendation:
- Minor revisions required
- Major revisions required
- Revise and resubmit
They mean the following:
- The manuscript is suitable for publication and only requires minor polishing; thus, no further reviews are requested.
- The authors are required to make moderate changes to their manuscript. The manuscript becomes acceptable for publication if the changes proposed by the reviewers and editors are successfully addressed. The revised manuscript will be examined by the Executive Editor and possibly sent back to all (or a selection of) reviewers for a second round of reviews. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers detailing the improvements made for the resubmission.
- The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. However, a major revision addressing all issues raised by the reviewers may be acceptable for publication. The revised manuscript will undergo a full second round of review. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers detailing the improvements made for the resubmission.
- In its current form, the manuscript is not suitable for publication. A resubmission would require substantial revisions and is only encouraged in special cases. The resubmitted manuscript will be considered as a new submission.
- The manuscript is rejected as it is deemed to be out of scope, not relevant, or not meeting the journal’s quality standards in terms of significance, novelty, and/or presentation.
Authors are notified by the Editorial Assistant (in name of the Executive Editor), whose decision is final.