Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

  • To provide a local scientific activity and debate in a standard academic procedure.
  • To promote research and development within and about rehabilitation
  • To provide a scientific debate among researchers in rehabilitation field and related fields (with a very broad scope of interest in many fields within the healthcare context).
  • JRRS aims to publish original research and facilitate continuing professional development for rehabilitation team and other health professions.
  • Looking at clinical application, education of practitioners and management of services and policies.


Section Policies

Original Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Critical Appraisal

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Conference Proceeding

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Translated Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that at least have potential will be reviewed on more details via a double-blinded process. The editor will then send his initial impressions to the authors.

Then the editor selects two reviewers (rarely three reviewers in specific cases).  The reviewers will be assigned from:

  • The editor’s own memory and knowledge
  • JRRS data-base of authors who have previously submitted papers
  • JRRS data-base of previous reviewers
  • The references in the manuscript
  • Internet, including medical data-bases
  • The suggested reviewers by the author at submission

The reviewers’ criteria:

  • Not be closely associated with the authors
  • Be interested or have expertise in at least some aspect of the paper
  • Be able and willing to give time to the review process

The reviewers will be contacted by email and if they accept, they are given access to the plaint blind version of the paper which does not include the title page detailing the authors and originating. Reviewers are given guidance and review form that are available to anyone on JRRS website.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Section A: Publication and Authorship

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Associate Editors and Editor in Chief. Author also can propose reviewers for some journals and article types.
  2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity and language.
  3. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revision or rejection.
  4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  6. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  7. No research can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal or in another journal.

Section B: Authors' Responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
  3. Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
  4. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  5. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Level of their contribution also must be defined in the “Authors’ Contributions” section of the article.
  6. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  7. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  8. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  9. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
  10. Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
  11. Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.

Section C: Peer Review/Responsibility for the Reviewers

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
  4. Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Section D: Editorial Responsibilities

  1. Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
  15. Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.

Section E: Publishing Ethics Issues

  1. All editorial members, reviewers and authors must confirm and obey rules defined by COPE.
  2. Corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or when a revision is asked for).
  3. Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
  4. All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
  5. Any notes of plagiarism, fraudulent data or any other kinds of fraud must be reported completely to COPE.



As stated in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, being listed as an author in a manuscript requires substantial contributions to all of the following sections:

a)     Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data

b)     The drafting of the manuscript or critical revision for important intellectual content

c)      Final approval of the manuscript to be published.

d)      Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved

Authors should meet all aforementioned conditions (a, b, c, and  d). Those who did not fulfill authorship criteria should be mentioned in acknowledgments only after obtaining their permission formally. In this section their full name and the type of their contribution should be addressed clearly.

By signing the author approval table in the cover letter, the authors confirm that they meet three authorship criteria listed above. Besides, the role of each author must be mentioned in “Authors’ Contribution” section in title page.

The authors’ role is not limited to these three conditions. Authors’ contribution may be presented as a list for example as:

  • Conception and design
  • Obtaining of funding
  • Administrative, technical, or logistic support
  • Provision of study materials or patients
  • Data Collection
  • Data Analysis and Interpretation
  • Statistical expertise
  • Critical Revising of the Article for Important Intellectual Content
  • Final approval of the article
  • The responsibility of the integrity of the whole procedure from study design to communicate with journal and reviewers