Editorial Board

Sanna Sihvonen, principal lecturer, PhD, Jamk University of Applied Sciences

Ursula Hyrkkänen, Executive lecturer, PhD, Turku University of Applied Sciences

Ira Jeglinsky-Kankainen, principal lecturer, PhD, Arcada University of Applied Sciences

Maarit Karhula, researcher, PhD, Kela

Anne Kärki, freelance researcher

Heidi Ruotsalainen, principal lecturer, PhD, Oulu University of Applied Sciences

Peer review policy

Initial manuscript evaluation by editorial board member

Every new submission is checked for completeness and following the journal instruction of submission as well as screening for similarity by plagiarism checking software. Those articles which pass this step are assigned to an editorial board member for primary evaluation. The editorial board member will decide if the manuscript should be rejected without peer review or it is qualified to send for peer review.

Those manuscripts which are inadequately original, are written in poor English language, have serious conceptual and/or methodological flaws or are outside the aims and scope of the journal will be rejected at this stage. Feedback and the reason of rejection is provided by editorial board for all manuscripts rejected without review and the author(s) of manuscripts will normally be informed within 3 weeks of manuscript receipt.

Those submitted manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are passed to at least 1 peer reviewers who are matched to the paper according to their expertise and discipline for peer review.

Type of peer review

Nordic Journal of Rehabilitation applies double-blind peer review process, which means both the reviewer and the author(s) remain anonymous throughout the process.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:

  • originality and significance of intervention and contribution to the field of expertise
  • interest to rehabilitation professionals
  • international quality
  • reportage of proper previous literatures
  • satisfactory and acceptability of methodology and analysis
  • intelligible, succinct and scientific writing style

The journal asks potential reviewers to prepare anonymous comments to the author(s) as well as a confidential comment or note to the editorial board. Reviewers are expected to make a recommendation to the editorial board about the final decision for the manuscript. The reviewers’ comments are made available to all authors of the manuscript.

Typically, the manuscript will be reviewed within 2-3 months. In unusual delay, editor will contact the reviewer and remind about the evaluation deadline. In some cases, editor has the power to invite alternative reviewers to participate in peer reviewing process at any time.

The final decision and publication

Based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations, editorial board is responsible for the decision to reject or accept the manuscript for publication, or even request author(s) for revision within 2 weeks. The author(s) will be informed about the editorial decision together with reviewers’ comments and recommendations made.

After acceptance, editor would ask corresponded author to send the final version of accepted manuscript with the possible corrections. The author(s) will receive the final draft of manuscript with the journal template made by editorial office within 2 weeks. While receiving the final draft, the author(s) will be asked to approve the final version for publication. The hard copy of manuscript will be published online within 2-3 weeks of final approve by author(s).