JRM–CC is a forum for a broad range of interesting clinical papers including case studies, case series, pilot studies, educational papers, personal opinions, technical papers, short reports, PhD-thesis summaries, position papers, book reviews. etc. The main criterion for considering a submission will be the relevance for clinical practice in Rehabilitation Medicine.
It is advisable to give suggestions on 2–3 reviewers that are well versed in the area of the manuscript. However, it is the Editor who will make the final decision on the choice of reviewers.
Supplementary material can include for example video- and audio files but also figures, tables, and datasets. Including supplementary material with your article can make it more discoverable, and help maximizing downloads and citations.
Video abstracts can be a good way of getting others to engage with your research, ultimately increasing the visibility and impact of your work. Through a video abstract you can introduce the article in your own words, telling readers what the unique contribution of your article is and why they should read it. We recommend keeping a video abstract short and to the point (no more than a few minutes) and that you use images, charts or tables to help explain the focus of your article. Consider the aim of the video throughout – to get people to read your article. The best video format is MP4 although other video formats such as MOV and MPEG4 are also supported. The minimum dimension is 426 x 240 and the max dimension is 3840 x 2160.
Please make sure to include any supplementary files at the same time as you submit your manuscript, although a video abstract can be sent upon acceptance instead.
Supplementary material that requires language editing or typesetting from the editorial team will involve a fee of 25 €/supplement (extensive material might count as two supplementary files due to the extra workload involved). Video files will be published free of charge.
|Major corrections will be dealt with as follows:|
We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to editorial decisions and complaints about the management of the peer review process.
The editors don’t expect frequent appeals and rarely reverse the original decisions. The decision to reject a manuscript will often involve the editor’s judgment of priority/ importance/relevance. These are things which authors usually cannot address through an appeal. However, if you believe that there is a case to be made for a genuine appeal please submit an appeal letter to the editorial office detailing the basis for the appeal. Should you as an author wish to comment on aspects of the journal’s editorial management, you are welcome to submit such a comment to the editorial office.