Authorship Guidelines

All authors are expected to have made substantial contributions to the following aspects:

1. Conception and design of the study
2. Acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
3. Drafting the article or  critically revising itfor important intellectual content
4. Providing final approval of the submitted version

Before submitting the manuscript, authors should carefully consider the order of authors, and provide a definitive author list.

1.1 Submission Declaration and Verification

By submitting an article, the following declarations and verifications are implied:

1. The work described in the article has not been previously published, except in the form of an abstract, a published lecture, or an academic thesis (for more information, refer to 'Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication').
2. The article is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
3. The publication of the article has been approved by all authors and, tacitly or explicitly, by the responsible authorities where the work was conducted.
4. If accepted for publication, the article will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English, or any other language, including electronic publication, without the written consent of the copyright holder.
5. To ensure compliance, your article may be subjected to checks by Crossref Similarity Check and other copyright or duplicate checking softwares

1.2 Authorship Changes

Before manuscript submission, authors are advised to thoroughly consider the list and order of authors, providing the definitive authorship details at the time of original submission. Any modifications, including additions, removals, or rearrangements of author names, should be made solely prior to the manuscript's acceptance and only after the approval of the journal Editor. To request such alterations, the corresponding author must submit the following reasons to the Editor:

1. A clear reason behind the proposed change in authorship.
2. Written confirmation (via email or letter) from all authors, expressing their agreement with the proposed addition, removal, or rearrangement. In the case of adding or removing authors, confirmation must also be obtained from the author being added or removed.

Exceptions to the aforementioned guidelines occur only under extraordinary circumstances, whereby the Editor will evaluate requests for additions, removals, or rearrangements of authors after the manuscript has been accepted. During the evaluation process, the publication of the manuscript will be temporarily suspended. If the manuscript has already been published in an online issue, approved requests by the Editor will result in a corrigendum being issued.

2. Plagiarism policy

2.1 Definition of Plagiarism

1. Plagiarism refers to the act of presenting someone else's work, ideas, or words as one's own without proper acknowledgment or reference.
2. Examples of plagiarism include copying and pasting text, paraphrasing without proper attribution, and using figures, tables, or images from others without permission or proper referencing.

2.2 Originality and Attribution

1. All manuscripts submitted to the journal "PHYSICAL THERAPY" must be original works authored by the submitting authors.
2. Authors are required to appropriately cite and attribute the sources of ideas, information, data, and direct quotations used in their manuscripts.
3. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism by submitting the same or substantially similar work to multiple publications.

2.3 Plagiarism Detection

1. The journal employs various plagiarism detection tools and software to identify potential instances of plagiarism in submitted manuscripts.
2. Authors may be requested to submit their manuscripts for plagiarism detection during review.

2.4 Cross-Checking and Cross-Referencing

1. Editors and reviewers can cross-check submitted manuscripts with published literature and other sources to identify possible cases of plagiarism or inadequate reporting.
2. Authors are responsible for ensuring their papers appropriately reference and cite relevant previous work in the field.

2.5 Consequences of Plagiarism

1. If plagiarism is detected in a submitted manuscript, the journal will take appropriate action, which may involve rejecting the manuscript, notifying the author's institution or employer, and reporting the incident to the relevant authorities or professional bodies.
2. In cases where plagiarism is identified in a published article, the journal may issue corrections, retractions, or errata as necessary, following established guidelines and procedures.

2.6 Author Responsibilities

1. Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality and integrity of their work.
2. Authors must properly cite and reference all sources used in their manuscripts.
3. Authors should disclose potential conflicts of interest and obtain the necessary permission to use copyrighted material.

2.7 Appeals and Disputes

1. Authors have the right to appeal decisions related to allegations of plagiarism by providing a detailed rebuttal and supporting evidence.
2. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor to ensure a fair and impartial review process.

Declaration of Interest

All authors are required to disclose any financial and personal relationships they have with individuals or organizations that could potentially influence or bias their work. These relationships may include but are not limited to employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other sources of funding. Authors must make their disclosures in two specific locations:

1. Summary Declaration of Interest Statement: This statement should be included either in the title page file (if double anonymized) or the manuscript file (if single anonymized). If no competing interests exist, authors should clearly state: "Declarations of interest: none."
2. Detailed Disclosures: Authors must provide comprehensive disclosures as part of a separate Declaration of Interest form, which becomes a part of the journal's official records. Potential conflicts of interest must be declared in both the summary declaration and the detailed disclosures, ensuring consistency and accuracy of the information provided.

3.1 Acknowledgments

Individuals who do not meet the criteria for authorship, as defined above, should be acknowledged in a separate acknowledgments section.

1. Examples of individuals who may be acknowledged include those who provided technical assistance, writing support, or general departmental support.

Authors should disclose any writing assistance received and identify the entity that provided financial support for this assistance.

Data Fabrication and Falsification

Data falsification is the deliberate act of creating or fabricating data that does not genuinely exist. It encompasses the deceptive presentation of these concocted data as legitimate research findings. This unethical conduct severely compromises the integrity and credibility of scientific research. In situations where the reliability of study data is in doubt,access to the original data will be requested from the authors.

4.1 Declaration on the Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific writing

The following guidance refers only to the writing process and not to the use of AI tools to analyze and draw conclusions from data as part of the research process.
The application of technology should be done under human supervision and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the output, as AI can produce results that sound valid and may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.
AI and AI-supported technologies should not be listed as authors or co-authors or referred to as authors. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be assigned and performed by humans.
Authors should disclose in writing the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in their manuscript. The declaration will appear in the published work. Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the content of the paper.

5, Informed Consent

The principle of informed consent recognizes and respects the individual rights of all participants involved. When conducting studies or interviews, individuals have the right to control the use of their data, their statements, and any associated photographs. This is particularly crucial when working with vulnerable individuals, such as minors, patients, refugees, and others, or when utilizing images in sensitive contexts. In such cases, authors typically need to obtain written consent before including any images.
It is important to refrain from publishing identifying details, including names, dates of birth, identity numbers, biometric characteristics (such as facial features, fingerprints, writing style, voice patterns, DNA, or other distinctive attributes), and other personal information, unless it is essential for scholarly purposes and explicit written informed consent has been obtained from the participant, their parent/guardian (if the participant is a minor or incapable), or a legal representative. Achieving complete anonymity can be challenging in certain situations, as providing detailed descriptions of individual participants, whether in full-body or specific body sections, may inadvertently reveal their identity. However, if the information is properly anonymized and no identifying images are included, consent may not be required in specific circumstances.
Authors should always obtain informed consent for publication when any doubts arise. For instance, merely masking the eye region in participant photographs is insufficient to protect anonymity. If identifying characteristics are modified to preserve anonymity, as in the case of genetic profiles, authors must assure that these alterations do not distort the intended meaning.
There are exceptions where obtaining consent may not be necessary:
Images such as X-rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, brain scans, and pathology slides usually do not require consent unless there are concerns about potential identifying information. In such cases, authors should ensure that appropriate consent is obtained.
Reusing images from previous publications assume that the relevant consent information was obtained in the initial publication. Authors should provide proper attribution for republished images.
Note: It is important to keep in mind that guidelines and ethical considerations regarding informed consent may vary across different jurisdictions and institutions.

6. Review Process

Peer review is a process specifically designed to assess the validity, quality and often the novelty of articles intended for publication. Its primary objective is to maintain the integrity of scientific research by identifying and eliminating invalid or low-quality articles.
From the journal's perspective, peer review serves as a content filtering mechanism, directing articles of superior quality, thus making the journal credible.
Subjecting articles to the rigor of peer reviewer evaluation enhances their value. Consequently, the publisher must ensure the credibility of the peer review process by selecting appropriate reviewers.
6.1 Stages of peer review process:

1. Document submission: The author submits the paper to the journal, typically through an electronic system, although it may accept submissions via email.
2. Evaluation by the editorial team: The editorial team reviews the paper to ensure it meets the requirements outlined in the journal's Author Guidelines. The focus at this stage is not on assessing the quality of the paper.
3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief: The Editor-in-Chief assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality, and merit. It is possible for the Editor-in-Chief to reject the paper at this stage.
4. Invitation to reviewers: The Editor-in-Chief or a editorial team member invites suitable evaluators/reviewers to assess the paper. Typically, two reviewers are required for an objective evaluation, but in some cases, three reviewers may be sought.
5. Response to reviewer invitation: Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They can accept or reject the invitation, and if declining, they may suggest alternative reviewers.
6. Article evaluation: The reviewer determines the time, which should not exceed 4 weeks, to read the paper several times. The initial reading helps form an initial impression, and if significant issues are identified, the reviewer may reject the paper at this stage. Otherwise, they conduct further readings, making detailed notes for a comprehensive critique. The reviewer then submits their evaluation to the journal, along with a recommendation (e.g., revise, accept, or reject the paper).
7. Review evaluation by the journal: The Editor-in-Chief reviews all received evaluations before making a decision. In cases where reviews differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide an additional opinion.
8. Communication of decision to the author: The Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the editorial team sends an email to the responsible author, conveying the decision and including relevant comments made by the reviewers. Reviewers' comments are sent anonymously to the author.
9. Next Steps:
10. Acceptance and publication: If the paper is accepted, it goes through the publication process.
11. Rejection or revision: If the paper is rejected or requires major/minor revisions, it is either rejected outright or returned to the author for further work. Reviewers are notified of the outcome, and if the paper requires revision, they may expect to receive a new version for further review. However, if only minor changes are requested, the responsible author can make the revisions, and the article can proceed to publication.

7. Corrections and Retractions

In cases where misconduct or alleged fraud is suspected, journals and/or publishers follow the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and conduct an investigation. If following the investigation, valid concerns arise, the authors involved contact each other via the email address they have provided to resolve the issue. Depending on the circumstances, the journal and/or the publisher may implement the following measures:
Submitted articles under review:

1. If the article is still under review, then it may be rejected and returned to the author.

Published articles:

1. For articles already published online, the action taken will depend on the nature and seriousness of the infringement.
2. A correction may be placed alongside the article to correct any errors or inaccuracies.
3. A note from the editor or an expression of concern by the editor to address specific issues may be added.
4. In severe cases, the article may be withdrawn, meaning that it will remain on the platform, but with the watermarked "withdrawn", with an accompanying explanation provided alongside.

The reasons for any corrections, editor's notes, expressions of concern or withdrawals will be clearly stated in the published material.
Additional measures:

1. The author's institution may be contacted regarding this issue.

8. Ethics Approval and Informed Consent Statements

The author is responsible for providing an accurate and comprehensive report. At the same time, one of the duties of the editor-in-chief or responsible editorial team member is to ensure that papers submitted for peer review and accepted for publication in their journal include appropriate ethics and consent/animal welfare statements that are clear and understandable to an international readership.
If the statements provided by the authors do not adequately explain why a particular action was taken, the journal officers should request additional information from them.
Authors are expected to confirm that they have followed the appropriate ethics review and consent protocols following an informed/animal welfare review. Where applicable, authors should also ensure that their research was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki. It is not necessary for authors to regularly submit ethics approval or consent forms to the journal. However, if the journal editorial team suspects that there are ethical concerns about a submitted paper, they should consult with the editor-in-chief to request documentation from the author. If these forms are submitted, it becomes the responsibility of the Editor to carefully check their appropriateness. It is important to note that there may be legal and privacy issues associated with journals receiving confidential patient information, such as completed consent forms.
Editors should bear in mind the following guidelines:

1. Ethics Approval: Manuscripts should include the name of the approving body and the corresponding approval number/ID if ethics approval has been obtained. It is preferable for authors to provide more detailed information rather than a generic statement like "Approval was obtained from the local ethics committee."
2. Exemption from Ethics Approval: If an appropriate body has granted exemption from ethics approval, authors should explicitly state this and provide the rationale for the exemption.
3. Explanation for Lack of Ethics Approval or Informed Consent: Clear explanations should be provided in the manuscript as to why ethics approval and/or informed consent were not sought for a particular study in a specific country or region. Statements such as "Ethics approval was not required for this study" or "Not applicable" are insufficient. Authors should provide suitable reasons with supporting citations, if applicable.
4. Informed Consent: If informed consent has been obtained, authors should specify the scope of the consent. For instance, consent for treatment does not necessarily cover the use of samples or inclusion in a retrospective study. It is important to note that consent for treatment is distinct from consent for the publication of patient information, including images, in a case report, unless otherwise specified.
5. Documentation of Consent: Authors should indicate whether informed consent was obtained in written or verbal form. If verbal consent was given, authors should explain the reasons for this choice and describe how the consent was recorded.
6. Waiver of Informed Consent: If the need for informed consent was waived, authors should specify who granted the waiver and provide the rationale for it.
7. Animal Welfare Statements: Statements related to animal welfare should confirm that the study adhered to international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for humane animal treatment and complied with relevant legislation. If the study involved client-owned animals, it should demonstrate a high standard of veterinary care and informed client consent. Alternatively, if guidelines for humane animal treatment were not applicable to the study, the authors should explain the reason for this.

By adhering to these guidelines, authors can ensure that appropriate ethics approval and informed consent/animal welfare statements are included in manuscripts, thereby maintaining research integrity and ethical standards.

9. Reporting guidelines

Ensuring that your article presents a clear and complete description of your research is very important. Well-documented research is more valuable as it allows authors, reviewers and readers to understand the methodology used and the results obtained.
Conversely, research that is superficially reported on how it was structured may mislead the audience and make it difficult to replicate in the future or to include in other studies such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
To ensure clarity and reproducibility, it is vital to write your study in a way that allows readers to fully understand it and potentially reproduce it without the need for further information. You should pay particular attention to providing sufficient detail in the 'Method' section of your article.
The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research - EQUATOR (https://www.equator-network.org/) network is an international initiative aimed at improving the quality of research publications. It provides a comprehensive list of reporting guidelines and other material to help improve reporting.
A list full of all of the reporting guidelines endorsed by the EQUATOR Network can be found here. Some of the reporting guidelines for common study designs are:

1. Randomized controlled trials (CONSORT)
2. Systematic reviews (PRISMA)
3. Observational studies (STROBE)
4. Case reports (CARE)
5. Qualitative research (COREQ)

Peer reviewers may be asked to use these checklists when assessing your manuscript. If you follow these guidelines, editors and peer reviewers will be able to assess your manuscript better as they will easily understand what methods have been used. It may also mean that they ask authors fewer revisions.

10. Open Access

According to the requirements of the Panhellenic Association of Physiotherapists the articles published are open access.
User rights:
All articles published under open access will be freely available for immediate and permanent reading and downloading by everyone. We provide authors with a range of licenses to choose from, which determine how the articles can be reused. Currently, the following license options are defined for this journal:

1. Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): Allows others to distribute and copy the article, create excerpts, abstracts, and revised versions, including translations. It also permits inclusion of the article in collective works, such as anthologies, and adaptation of the text or data from the article, even for commercial purposes. However, the author(s) must be credited, and the author(s) should not be presented as endorsing or supporting any modifications made to the article that would damage their reputation or honor.
2. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND): Allows others to distribute and copy the article for non-commercial purposes and include it in collective works, provided they credit the author(s) and do not alter or modify the article.

11. Double-blind Review

Guidelines for double-blind peer review
The journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the identity of the author submitting the article and the author team are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. 
To facilitate this, authors should ensure that their articles are prepared in a way that does not betray their identity.  To assist in this preparation, please ensure the following when submitting to the journal.
Initially, you must submit 2 separate word files. One word file will contain the title of the article and author details (Title Page) and then the second word file with the title of the article without author details and the Manuscript (Blind Manuscript).
Information on preparing the Title Page:
This should include the title, names, and affiliations of the authors, and the full address of the responsible author submitting the article to the journal, including phone and email address.
Information for the preparation of the Blind Manuscript:
In addition to the obvious need to remove names and collaborations below the title within the article, there are other steps that need to be taken to ensure that the article is properly prepared for double-blind peer review.  To assist in this process, the key elements that must be adhered to are as follows:

1. Remove any identifying information, including authors' names, from the names of the records and ensure that the properties of the papers are also anonymous.
2. Use the third person to refer to work previously undertaken by the authors, e.g. replace any phrases such as "as we have previously shown" with ".has been previously demonstrated [Anonymous, 2007]".
3. Ensure that the figures do not contain any identifiers related to affiliation
4. Do not eliminate substantive self-references or other references, but limit self-references only to work that is relevant to those reviewing the submitted work.
5. Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows:  "[Anonymous, 2007]".
6. Remove references to funding sources
7. Do not include acknowledgements

12. Presentation of manuscript

Method of writing the article
Articles should be written as follows:

1. Use MS Word for Windows text editor.
2. Times New Roman font, font size 12, paragraph spacing 1.5, with 2.5 cm margins on each page (about 300 words/page).
3. The numbering of pages should be done on the right of the footer.
4. Add line numbersof the article, to the left of the text.
5. Use the tab key instead of space at the beginning of paragraphs or when laying out tables.
6. Adding a space after punctuation marks
7. Marking the text in italics instead of bold characters.

Structure of the article
The following parts of the article are written separately:

1. The title page: a) the title of the article, b) the names of the authors in the nominative case, c) the status of each author and the scientific center, university institution, clinic, or laboratory from which the work originates, d) the name, address and telephone number of one of the authors for editorial contact, e) possible sources that have financially supported and helped to carry out the work.
2. Abstracts (Greek and English) and keywords: are usually written in the third person and do not exceed 250 words each. The length is 60 words or less for interesting cases and diagnostic techniques.

The summary is divided into four paragraphs:

1. Aim: Briefly state the hypothesis to be tested and the dilemma to be solved.
2. Material Method: Describe briefly and clearly what material and methods were used and how they were analyzed.
3. Results: Include the results of the study.
4. Conclusions: The conclusions that logically follow from the results of the study are described in one or two sentences.
5. Keywords: 4-5 keywords are mentioned, formulated in Greek and English respectively. These words must be crucial for finding the data needed to achieve the study’s intended purpose.

The main text:

1. historical review and current reality through article review (the APA style is followed)
2. description of the methodology explanation of the measurement and analysis techniques presentation of the results commentary on the results and discussion conclusions articulography (include the DOI of each article)
3. the tables, graphs, and pictures together with the captions

Tables - Diagrams - Pictures:
They are arranged on a separate page with double line spacing. They are numbered with Arabic numerals in the order of their appearance in the text (Table 1) and each is given a short title. In all three cases, only three colors should be used (white, black, and grey) and the files should be in TIF format.
References:
References must be in APA style. Author name(s), year of publication, article or chapter title, journal or book title, volume and issue (where appropriate), and page numbers are essential. All bibliographic entries must contain a corresponding in-text citation. The addition of DOI (Digital Object Identifier) numbers is recommended but not essential.

- References In-text

 

- Missing information

When the author, publication date or locator is unknown, take the steps outlined below.

 

- Alternative locators

- Multiple sources in one parenthesis

 

- Citing indirect sources (“as cited in”)

When referencing a source that you have discovered through another source, it is preferable to access the original or primary source whenever possible.
If you are unable to locate the source, you should cite it by referring to the secondary source that led you to it. To do this, use the phrase "as cited in" followed by the secondary source's citation.  Example: (Myrogiannis, 2019 , as cited in Chandolias et al., 2023)
If the publication date of the primary source is unknown, include only the year of publication of the secondary source. Myrogiannis (as cited in Chandolias, 2017) states that…

- Reference page

1.  

13. Αcceptance for Publication - Proofs

After the article has been accepted for publication, it undergoes a process of being prepared for the next issue of the journal and is ultimately published in its final form.
When reviewers request corrections to be made before acceptance, the corresponding author, along with the research team, is responsible for approving these corrections. Once the corrected article has been submitted, no further contribution from the authors is necessary. The timeframe for making corrections is two weeks from the date of receiving the confirmation letter.
Upon acceptance for publication, the designated author will receive an acceptance letter via email from the journal editor.
Once the article has been formatted for publication, it is sent by the journal to the corresponding author for re-review. The corresponding author should inform the co-authors to verify their details. The timeframe for making any necessary corrections at this stage is also two weeks from the date of receiving the final version for publication.

14. Privacy policy

This policy outlines our commitment to safeguarding your privacy, the types of data we collect and how we handle the collected data.
We take extensive measures to ensure that all the data we collect from you is protected against unauthorized access by third parties. We employ appropriate security technologies and physical safeguards to safeguard your personal information.
During the registration process, we will request certain personal details from you, including but not limited to your name, valid email address, membership information, mailing address, phone number, password, academic degree, position in your institution or organization, and research interests.
The journal may use this information to fulfill our contractual obligations to you, such as publishing your article. Additionally, we may utilize this information internally to evaluate and enhance our services, respond to your inquiries or comments, and identify and prevent fraud, claims, or other liabilities.
Please note that the journal reserves the right to modify this Privacy Policy without prior notice. Any changes will be posted, and it is your responsibility to periodically review this Privacy Policy for any amendments. By continuing to use our service after these changes, you indicate your acceptance and agreement to the updated policy.

14.1 Editorial independence

We firmly uphold the belief that the decision-making processes within our publications must remain completely independent from any commercial interests.
To ensure this editorial independence, it is imperative that all editorial decisions, concerns, or complaints regarding editorial decisions are addressed exclusively within the editorial structures of the publication. These structures typically consist of editors, editors-in-chief, and editorial or review boards responsible for managing the publication's editorial matters.
Furthermore, it is essential that individuals from the journal or society side refrain from getting involved, intervening, or making comments on editorial decisions under any circumstances.
Deviation from the strict adherence to this principle, even in a single instance, would ultimately undermine the integrity of the principle of editorial independence as a whole.