Author Guidelines

Journal of Modern Rehabilitation accepts manuscript submissions through website submission service.

Journal of Modern Rehabilitation has specific instructions and guidelines for submitting articles. Please read and review them carefully. Articles that are not submitted in accordance with our instructions and guidelines are more likely to be rejected. 


Mission Statement

 Journal of Modern Rehabilitation is the official scholarly journal of the Rehabilitation Faculty at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS). The mission of the Journal of Modern Rehabilitation is to publish articles about all aspects of the JMR and to promote excellence in education, scientific research, clinical practice, health policy, and administration.

The JMR is publishing in a seasonal base and bilingual (English-Persian).

The purpose of publishing the JMR is promoting depth of the relevant knowledge and providing the perfect platform to encourage researchers in the appropriate fields. The scope of the Journal emphasizes all aspects of the specialty of rehabilitation, including Physiotherapy, Kinesiology, Biomedical Engineering, Motion Control, and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; and also relative rehabilitation specialties including Physical Medicine, Orthopedic Rehabilitation, Cardiac Rehabilitation, Respiratory Rehabilitation, Neurology Rehabilitation, Gynecology Rehabilitation, Speech Therapy, Audiology, Occupational Therapy, and Optometry. The practice focus is on the clinical and administrative aspects of rehabilitation. The research focus emphasizes clinical inquiry and also explores basic science. The educational focus is on the application of modern teaching techniques/technology to graduate, undergraduate, and postgraduate rehabilitation instructional programs.

The overall goal of the Journal is to enhance the interrelationship of practice, research, and education to advance the field of rehabilitation medicine for the ultimate benefit of the patient. 

  1. Conditions for Submission

The author must:

1.1. assures that the manuscript is an original work that has not been previously published.

1.2. assures that the manuscript has not been simultaneously submitted to any other journals for publication.

1.3. accepts full responsibility for the accuracy of all content, including findings, citations, quotations, and references contained within the manuscript.

1.4. writes and organizes the manuscript fluently in English. The editorial rules must be followed rigorously. The manuscript must be written by word software 2000 or higher with the font of the Times New Roman size 14-16 for the headings, titles and subtitles and size 12 for the main content. The use of foreign words must be prohibited. If an appropriate English word does not exist to replace, the authors must explain the transcription to English as a footnote in the same page.

1.5. Follows the ethical rules and provides an appropriate ethics approval. The patient's name must not be mentioned in the article. If there is a picture of a patient on the manuscript, her/his eye must be covered with a black line. The principles of medical ethics to humans and/or laboratory animals must be rigorously followed. The Europe Committee guidelines for medical research are available for more ethical information www……. .  

1.6. submits the manuscript on line through the official website of the journal.

  1. Type of the Articles

2.1. Original Articles: Theses articles are the results of the original clinical and/or basic researches of the authors.

  The authors must prepare:

  1. A title page including: title of the manuscript and the author's name, academic degree, affiliation, responsibility in the article, contact number, e-mail and exact address for each author. The title page should also include time and place of the research application and date of submission.
  2. An abstract of the article in English maximum up to 200 words. The abstract structure includes: Background, Material and Methods, Results, Conclusions and Keywords.
  3. The main paper including:


   The author(s) must write an appropriate introduction including:

- The previous research and appropriate findings related to the topic. All previous research must      

   be well addressed numerically in the introduction and then as the references. 

   - The reasons and gaps lead to design this research.

   - The main questions and/or hypothesis of the study.

   - The main purposes of the study.

    Materials and Methods:

The author(s) must write an appropriate materials and methods including:

- Study design.

- Selection criteria of experiment and control groups including age and gender of participants

- Details of the procedure, materials and tools.

- Time and place of study.

- Method of gathering data.

- Ethical rules.

- Statistical analysis. 


The author(s) must write an appropriate results section including:

- The text, tables and graphs (mean with confidence interval, range, mode and means), according

   the arrangement of the data in the context.

- The essential important findings and decisive results.

- Black and white four and/or two dimensional charts with minimum essential explanation.

- The numerical appropriate orders for the tables, graphs and/or charts.

- An appropriate brief title above each table and/or below each graph.

- The authors must avoid to repeat the results in the other forms such as tables and/or graphs.


The author(s) must write an appropriate discussion including:

- The importance of the findings and the limitations.

- Comparison of findings of the study with findings of the previous relevant reported studies in the introduction and/or references.

- Explanation of the results and their rational and possible reasons for the similarities and/or differences with the previous relevant reported studies.  

- Scientific explanation of the findings, their applications and capabilities of generalization.

- Future possible steps and/or tips that help to continue research in this topic.


The author(s) must write number of the references in a parenthesis within the text base on the numerical order, and then write an appropriate references section base on Vancouver guidelines as follows:

- For books:

Author(s) last name / name / book name / place of publication / publisher / publishing year / page(s).

Example: Hertling D, Kessler RM. Management of common musculoskeletal disorders: Physical Therapy Principles and methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006, 50-55

- For a chapter of a book:

Chapter author(s) last name / name / chapter of the book / book author(s) last name / name / book name / place of publication / publisher / publishing year / page(s).

Example: Tillman LJ, Chasan N. Properties of dense connective tissue. In: Hertling D, Kessler RM, editors: Management of common musculoskeletal disorders: Physical therapy principles and methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006, 3-13.

- For an article:

Author(s) last name / name / article title / journal name / year of publication / number of issue / number of volume / page(s).

Example: Riddell JS, Haddian M. Field potentials generated by group Ia muscle afferents in the lower - lumbar segments of the feline spinal cord. J Physiol (Lond.) 2000;522(1):97-108

- For an article in an electronic format:

Author(s) last name / name / article title / journal name / year of publication / number of issue / number of volume / page(s).

Example: Joenes DW, Sutow EJ, Graham BS. Influence of plasticizer on soft polymer gelation. J Dent Res 1986;65(5): 634-42.

Available from: http://bmj. (accessed 10 Oct2006).

- For an proposal and/or thesis:

Author last name / name / title of proposal or thesis / dissertation in a bracket / city / country / name of the university / year.

Example: Bunker VM. Nutrition in the elderly with particular references to essential trace elements [dissertation]. Southampton England: univ. Southampton; 1987.

 * The name of journals must be written as complete or brief titles in all paper sources. The authors must follow the principles rules of homogeneity.

* All pictures and graphs must be submitted in a high quality version with a resolution of at least 600dpi. The submitted photos must be original and the consent must be achieved if it is necessary.


The author(s) may write the attachments if it is necessary. The attachments are including:

Extra pictures, graphs and tables with explanations related to the article numbered separately in sequence to the original text. The attachments are excessive information that the author(s) does/do not wish to publish them in the main draft.

 2.2. Review Articles: Theses articles are not original. The review articles are written based on former studies of well-known researcher(s). The authors of review articles must have enough experiences in the field and prepare an appropriate scientific draft as an original article.

 The review article text must including introduction, methods, discussion, conclusions, abstract and references. The references must not be less than 30.

 2.3. Case Report (Case Study): Theses articles are not original. The case report articles are written based on certain limited cases as educational aspects and/or being basis of a research.

The case report article must including introduction, case description, discussion, abstract and references. The abstract of a case report includes introduction, case description and keywords. 

The Journal Editorial Board is free to accept or reject papers and reserves the right to edit the submitted articles. The Journal contents can be used with full source mentioned address.



Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.



Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.


Peer Review Process

Journal of Modern Rehabilitation (JMR) as a member of Negah Journals, published by Negah Institute for Scientific Communication, is committed to apply double-blind peer reviewing process, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices and ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. You may find the journal’s Policies and Guidelines for Peer-reviewers, here.

Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially all papers are assessed by an editorial committee consisting of 2 or more members of the editorial team. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.

Editorials and Letters may be accepted at this stage but in all other cases the decision is to reject the paper or to send it for peer review. Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions in order to assist the editors in deciding whether or not send it out for review. Authors can expect a decision from this stage of the review process within 1–2 weeks of submission.

Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an international expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double blind peer review by two or more reviewers, under supervision of the journal section editor also the editor in chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure author identity is concealed during the review process but it is up to authors to ensure that their details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity. Authors who reveal their identity in the manuscript will be deemed to have declined anonymity and the review will be single blind (i.e. authors do not know reviewers' identities).

We aim to complete the review process within 4 weeks of the decision to review although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least 6 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance. You may find the journal’s article reviewing procedure, here.

Reviewers Role

Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a peer reviewed (double-blind referee) journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form. 

A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest. 

All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received. 

No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately. 

Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge. 

There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted. 

In general, cases the following may be checked in a review 

  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines 
  • Purpose and Objective of the article 
  • Method of using transitions in the article 
  • Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided 
  • References provided to substantiate the content 
  • Grammar, punctuation and spelling · Plagiarism issues 
  • Suitability of the article to the need 

A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article and they are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals. 

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. At JMR we believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.

As a reviewer you will be advising the editors (Section Editor and Editor in Chief), who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.

All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill the journal’s reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer – it as at this stage you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.

Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author Instruction with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journals' aims and scope is available on “Journal Information” menu and pages.

The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers on the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection. 

You should also:

  • Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
  • Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
  • Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
  • If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
  • Treat the author’s work the way you would like your own to be treated

Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only and the comments will be shared with the authors. You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this). 

You may find the journal’s article reviewing procedure, here.


Privacy and Confidentiality 

(Prepared Based on ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals)

In Journal of Modern Rehabilitation, manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

Journal of Modern Rehabilitation is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information, please click here.

International Standards for Authors and Editors

Journal of Modern Rehabilitation is committed to follow and apply International Standards for Authors and Editors of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Authors, here. Also, you may find the International Standards for Editors, here.

International Standards for Authors and Editors

Journal of Modern Rehabilitation is committed to follow and apply International Standards for Authors and Editors of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Authors, here. Also, you may find the International Standards for Editors, here.

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

Although we are applying double bind peer review, research sphere can be a small world. It means many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with their work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that is written by a friend or competitor, but:

  • If there’s a significant conflict of interest, you should reveal this to the editor
  • If the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request
  • Avoid personal judgement and criticism at all times – judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them.
  • Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.

Please email the Editorial Office at the journal formal email, if you have any concerns about conflict of interest or ethical issues with the paper.

The Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

Journal of Modern Rehabilitation (JMR), as a member of Negah Journals, is committed to apply following codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, Negah Institute for Scientific Communication:

How to become a reviewer?

JMR is currently seeking new reviewers to join our team. For more information and apply send an email to:


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.


For Authors