Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for Engineering Health & Rehabilitation Engineering. Your expertise and dedication are vital to maintaining the journal’s high scientific standards and advancing the field of sustainable health and rehabilitation engineering. As a peer reviewer, you play a crucial role in ensuring the integrity, validity, and clarity of published research. This document outlines our expectations, processes, and ethical guidelines to support you in this important task.
Engineering Health & Rehabilitation Engineering operates a single-blind peer review process. In this model:
Reviewer identities are confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.
Reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities and affiliations.
All manuscripts, associated data, and reviewer comments must be treated as strictly confidential and may not be used for any purpose other than the review process.
Our editorial workflow is managed through the ScholarOne Manuscripts™ system. The typical steps are as follows:
Invitation: You will receive an email invitation with the manuscript title, abstract, and due date.
Response: Please accept or decline the invitation promptly via the link in the email.
Access & Review: Once accepted, you can download the manuscript and supporting files from the system.
Submission: Complete your review form and comments directly within the ScholarOne system by the agreed deadline.
Decision Notification: You will be notified of the editorial decision once it is made. For manuscripts requiring major revision, you may be invited to review the revised version.
Please evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Originality & Significance: Does the work present novel concepts, data, or interpretations? Does it make a substantial contribution to the field of health and rehabilitation engineering (fundamentals, conversion, materials, systems)?
Scientific Rigor: Are the research questions clear? Are the experimental/analytical methods appropriate, well-described, and reproducible? Is the data analysis sound and statistically valid?
Validity of Conclusions: Are the conclusions logically supported by the presented data? Are limitations adequately acknowledged?
Clarity & Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written? Are figures and tables necessary, clear, and effectively support the text?
Relevance to Scope: Does the manuscript fit within the journal’s Aims & Scope?
Ethical Compliance: Does the study adhere to ethical standards regarding authorship, data integrity, conflict of interest, and (if applicable) research involving humans, animals, or environmental safety?
Your review should be objective, substantive, and courteous. It should guide the authors toward improving their manuscript, whether it is accepted or not.
Structure Your Report:
Summary: Begin with a brief summary of the study in your own words to demonstrate your understanding.
Major Comments: Address core issues related to the criteria above (e.g., flaws in methodology, unsupported conclusions, missing critical analysis). These comments are typically essential for the manuscript to be publishable.
Minor Comments: Note specific issues such as unclear phrasing, citation errors, or suggestions for improving figures/tables.
Confidential Comments to Editor: Use this section to communicate any concerns about ethical issues, potential plagiarism, or conflicts of interest that should not be shared directly with the authors.
Provide Actionable Feedback:
Be specific. Instead of “the methods are unclear,” state “Please specify the pyrolysis heating rate and final hold time in Section 2.2.”
Justify your critiques with evidence from the manuscript or field knowledge.
Suggest solutions or alternatives where possible.
Distinguish between mandatory revisions and optional suggestions.
Recommendation: Based on your assessment, you will be asked to select one of the following recommendations:
Accept with no (further) revision: The manuscript is excellent and ready for publication as is. (Rare)
Accept after minor revision (no further review): Only minor clarifications/corrections are needed. The Associate Editor can verify the revisions.
Reconsider after major revision (re-review required): Substantive scientific or technical revisions are needed. The revised manuscript will likely be sent back to you for re-evaluation.
Reject: The manuscript has fundamental flaws, is out of scope, or lacks novelty/significance.
Confidentiality: Treat every manuscript as a confidential document. Do not discuss it with others or use its content for your own research before publication.
Conflict of Interest: Decline the review invitation if you have a competing interest (e.g., close collaboration with the authors, direct competition, personal animosity, financial ties). If in doubt, disclose the potential conflict to the Editor.
Objectivity & Fairness: Evaluate the manuscript on its scientific merits alone. Do not let the authors’ origin, gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation influence your judgment.
Promptness: Respect the agreed-upon deadline. If you need an extension or must decline after accepting, notify the Editorial Office immediately.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Alert the Editor if you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unattributed use of others’ work. Your knowledge of relevant unpublished literature can help assess novelty.
Respectful Tone: Provide criticism that is professional and constructive. Avoid hostile, derogatory, or personal comments.
If you are invited to review a revised manuscript (Manuscript ID R1):
Carefully review the authors’ point-by-point response to all reviewer comments (including those from other reviewers).
Assess whether the authors have adequately addressed all substantive concerns.
Evaluate any new data or text added during revision.
Your recommendation for the revised version should focus on whether the revisions have satisfactorily resolved the previous issues.
Do not retain copies of the manuscript or review materials after submitting your review.
Do not share the manuscript with students or colleagues for their input unless you have explicit prior permission from the Editor, and their identities and contributions must also remain confidential.
The ScholarOne system is secure, but please use standard precautions when accessing it.
For technical support with the ScholarOne system, use the “Get Help Now” link within the platform. For questions about the review process, ethical concerns, or to discuss a specific manuscript, please contact the Editorial Office: