All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are deemed insufficiently original, contain serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or fall outside the aims and scope of the journal. Only in exceptional cases may a manuscript be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts meeting the minimum criteria are forwarded to at least two expert reviewers for further evaluation.

IJOPT employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the submitted manuscript. IJOPT maintains a continuously updated database of reviewers to ensure high-quality and specialized evaluations.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and scientific contribution

• Methodological soundness

• Adherence to ethical guidelines

• Clarity of results and their alignment with conclusions

• Appropriate citation of previous relevant work

Reviewers are not responsible for language correction but may suggest improvements if they wish.

The duration of the review process depends on the responsiveness of reviewers. If conflicting reviews are received or if there is a delay, an additional expert opinion may be sought. In rare instances where it is challenging to secure a second review, or if a single review is exceptionally detailed and convincing, the Editor may decide based on one reviewer’s report. The final decision, along with reviewer recommendations and comments, will be communicated to the author. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers, who may request further revisions if necessary.

A final decision—acceptance, rejection, or revision request—will be communicated to the author, including verbatim comments from reviewers when applicable. The Editor’s decision is final and made in consultation with reviewer feedback.

Researchers interested in becoming reviewers for IJOPT may contact the editorial office. Benefits of reviewing include early access to new research, contribution to the integrity of scientific publication, and the opportunity to cite reviewing activity for professional development.

Manuscripts may be rejected due to technical or editorial reasons.

• Technical Reasons:

  • Insufficient data (e.g. missing controls)

  • Inadequate statistical analysis

  • Use of outdated or inappropriate methodologies

  • Weak research hypothesis or unsupported conclusions

• Editorial Reasons:

  • Out of scope for the journal

  • Insufficient novelty or impact

  • Ethical concerns (e.g., missing patient consent or ethics committee approval)

  • Non-compliance with journal formatting requirements

  • Lack of clarity, making replication difficult

  • Poor language quality or logic

  • Excessive self-citation or outdated references

  • Violations of publication ethics

IJOPT strictly follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to maintain integrity in scientific publishing. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to adhere to ethical principles as outlined in the COPE framework.

For detailed guidelines on peer review standards, please refer to the official document: Peer Review Guidelines.