The Journal of Sleep, Health, and Physiotherapy adopts double-blind peer review as its standard model: the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed throughout the process, so manuscripts are judged on scientific merit alone.

1. Editorial Screening

Every submission is first examined by the editor-in-chief or a designated editor for adherence to scope, originality, scientific relevance, structural adequacy, completeness of ethics documentation, minimum writing quality and presence of both the identified and anonymized files. Manuscripts may be returned for documentary adjustments or rejected at screening, always with a documented justification.

2. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Manuscripts approved at screening are assigned to independent reviewers with expertise in the subject. As a rule, at least two reviewers evaluate each manuscript. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest before accepting, and the anonymized manuscript is released only after acceptance of the invitation. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are not binding; justified exclusions are respected.

3. The Review

Reviewers complete a structured form rating originality, methodological quality, clarity and relevance, with detailed comments to the authors, optional confidential comments to the editor and a formal recommendation. Reviewers have a defined deadline; reminders are issued automatically, and incomplete reports cannot be submitted.

4. Editorial Decision and Revision

Based on the reports, the editor issues a documented decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, new review round or reject. Authors receive the decision with the anonymized reports and, for revisions, submit revised identified and anonymized versions with a point-by-point response letter. The full version history is preserved, and revised manuscripts may return to the original reviewers.

5. Timelines and Recognition

The journal monitors overdue reviews and aims for timely decisions. Reviewers receive a verifiable peer review certificate for each completed review. The scientific decision is never influenced by fees or fast track status.

6. Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision once, in writing, with a scientific justification, under the journal's Complaints and Appeals policy.