Reviewer Guidelines

Before reviewing a manuscript please consider the following:

Confidentiality: All submissions to Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal are confidential; please do not discuss any parts of the submission with a third party.
Time to review the submission: The reviewer should finish evaluating the article within two-three weeks. If additional time is required to review the article please contact the editor as soon as possible, or feel free to recommend alternative reviewer/s.
Potential conflicts of interests: Please disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing the article.

We really appreciate if you could provide detailed comments and make suggestions (if needed) to our authors to improve quality, and clarity of their research work. When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following issues:
Plagiarism: If an article is a substantial copy of another research work, or if you suspect that the results to be untrue, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
Medical Ethic: In research studies involving human subjects, the research protocol must be submitted for consideration, comment, and approval to an appropriate research ethics committee and must be declared in the manuscript under the methodology sections.

At CPOJ we follow the ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. For more information please visit ICMJE’s website (Preparing for Submission).

We recommend our Reviewers to read CPOJ Author’s guidelines to find out if the paper is suitable for the journal and meets the submission criteria such as article length, scope, clarity and novelty.

You should have the following questions in mind when reading the manuscript:
TITLE: Submission title should be informative and clearly describes the research work.

ABSTRACT: The Abstract of a research work is critically important and should be brief and clearly describe the content of the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION: In the Introduction section, authors must clearly state the problem(s) being explored in their research study and clarify previous findings in the literature, if applicable.

METHODOLOGY: We highly recommend our authors to consider the following items in the Methodology section: 1) The research design must be appropriate for solving the problem(s) stated in the introduction section, 2) Authors must provide sufficient information in order for their research to be replicable. Moreover, the method for all forms of data collection must be clearly explained in this section, 3) Proper in-text citation and reference (Vancouver style) to previous research work, 4) Suitable and reliable equipment and/or software for collecting and analyzing the data.

RESULTS: In the Result section, authors must report their findings in words, tables, or figures. Presented tables, and figures must be original and comprehensible with informative and appropriate captions.

DISCUSSION: In the Discussion and Conclusion sections, authors must support their findings with intelligible explanations. New findings or results should not be presented in these sections. Moreover, the authors should compare their findings with relevant literature and state their study’s limitations at the end of the discussion section. All authors are required to reveal at the end of the manuscript, under a subheading ” DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS”, any financial and personal relationships with organizations or individuals that might have influenced their research. 

REFERENCES: Authors must indicate references to the literature by using in-text citations in the “Vancouver” style. References must be listed in numerical order (1,2,3,…), and in the same order in which they are cited in the article. The reference list must appear at the end of the manuscript. ” References should follow the standards summarized in the NLM’s International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals”.

After reading and assessing the quality of the paper, please make a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major revision, Reject).
Accept: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor Revision: The paper is suitable for publication after minor revisions.
Major Revision: The paper has potential for publication after major revisions.
Reject: The paper is not suitable for publication with this journal due to fundamental issues.

(Download Review Form Here-Word File)
(Download Review Form Here- PDF File)