Balneo and PRM Research Journal - link page


Reviewer Recognition: Archive 


Instructions for Peer-reviewers:


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement Document: 2021 2026 
Reviewer Officer: Viorela Bembea


PEER REVIEW 2026 - Balneo and PRM Research Journal
Independent, Confidential and Constructive Scientific Evaluation
Balneo and PRM Research Journal is committed to a rigorous, fair, transparent and independent peer-review process designed to strengthen scientific quality, protect research integrity and support the publication of clinically, functionally and scientifically relevant research.
Peer review is an essential component of scholarly communication. It assists editors in evaluating the originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, validity, clarity and relevance of submitted manuscripts, while providing authors with constructive recommendations for improving their work.
Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final responsibility for editorial decisions remains with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated independent handling editor. 
PEER REVIEW AT A GLANCE
Peer-review model: Single-anonymous peer review
Minimum number of reviewers: Two independent subject experts
Initial assessment: Editorial scope, quality, ethics, reporting and citation screening
Possible decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision or Reject
Final decision: Editor-in-Chief or designated independent handling editor
Confidentiality: Mandatory throughout the process
Citation integrity: Explicitly evaluated
Artificial intelligence: Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external AI systems without prior journal permission
Peer-review contact: peer@bioclima.ro
Peer-Review Administration Officer: Viorela Bembea
1. Purpose of Peer Review
The journal’s peer-review process is intended to:
  • assess the originality and scientific contribution of the manuscript;
  • Evaluate the appropriateness of the study design and methodology;
  • Verify whether the results are reported accurately and transparently;
  • assess whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented;
  • identify methodological, statistical, ethical or reporting limitations;
  • evaluate compliance with applicable reporting guidelines;
  • verify the relevance and appropriateness of citations;
  • ensure alignment with the journal’s aims and operational editorial scope;
  • assist authors in improving the scientific quality and clarity of their work;
  • support editors in reaching fair and evidence-based decisions.
Peer review is not used to impose personal preferences, suppress legitimate scientific disagreement, require conformity with prevailing views or disadvantage studies reporting negative, inconclusive or unexpected findings.
2. Peer-Review Model - The journal applies a Single-anonymous peer-review model. Under this model:
  • authors’ identities are disclosed to reviewers;
  • reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors;
  • reviewer reports are transmitted to authors in anonymized form;
  • reviewer identities are accessible only to authorized editorial personnel.

3. Manuscripts Subject to Peer Review

The following scholarly article types normally undergo external peer review by at least two independent reviewers:
  • Original Research Articles;
  • Clinical Studies;
  • Randomized Controlled Trials;
  • Observational Studies;
  • Diagnostic and Prognostic Studies;
  • Systematic Reviews;
  • Scoping Reviews;
  • Meta-Analyses;
  • Narrative Reviews;
  • Case Reports;
  • Case Series;
  • Methodological and Technical Notes;
  • Short Communications;
  • Rehabilitation Technology Studies;
  • Letters containing original scientific arguments or data.
Corrections, retraction notices, administrative notices, and invited editorial statements may undergo editorial review rather than conventional external peer review and will be clearly identified according to article type. 
4. Editorial Screening Before Peer Review
Every submission undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external review. The editorial screening evaluates:
Scope alignment - The manuscript must demonstrate clear relevance to Balneology, Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Physiotherapy, Kinesiotherapy, Neurorehabilitation, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, Sports Medicine, Lifestyle Medicine, Healthy Ageing, Hydrotherapy, Aquatic Therapy, Thermal Rehabilitation, Functional Assessment or Rehabilitation Technology.
Scientific relevance - The manuscript must present a meaningful research question, clinically or functionally relevant analysis, or a scientifically justified synthesis of evidence.
Methodological suitability - The study design, population, sample size, methods, outcomes and statistical approach must be sufficiently appropriate to justify external review.
Ethical compliance - Human and animal research must contain the required ethics approval, informed consent and participant-protection statements.
Reporting quality - The manuscript must follow the relevant reporting guideline, where applicable.
Similarity and originality - Submissions may be screened using text-similarity software. Similarity findings are assessed contextually by the editorial team.
Citation integrity - The reference list is assessed for relevance, balance, unnecessary clustering, inappropriate journal self-citation and possible citation manipulation.
Completeness - All required authorship, funding, conflict-of-interest, data-availability, ethics and AI-use declarations must be present.
A manuscript may be declined before external review when it is outside the journal’s scope, scientifically insufficient, methodologically unsuitable, ethically incomplete, poorly reported or inconsistent with the journal’s editorial standards.
5. Reviewer Selection and Verification
Reviewers are selected according to:
  • subject expertise;
  • relevant publication record;
  • methodological competence;
  • clinical or scientific experience;
  • independence from the authors;
  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • ability to provide a timely and constructive evaluation.
Whenever reasonably possible, reviewers should not:
  • be affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
  • have a recent collaborative relationship with the authors;
  • have a direct supervisory, mentoring or dependent relationship with the authors;
  • have a personal, professional or financial interest in the outcome;
  • be directly involved in closely competing work that may impair objectivity.
Reviewer identity and expertise may be verified through:
  • institutional affiliation;
  • institutional email address;
  • ORCID;
  • Web of Science Researcher Profile;
  • Scopus Author ID;
  • PubMed or other publication records;
  • official institutional webpages.
Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are not automatically invited and are never used as the sole basis of reviewer selection.
The journal reserves the right to reject reviewer suggestions when independence, identity or expertise cannot be verified.
6. Number of Reviewers
Each scholarly manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.
A third reviewer or an editor member may be requested when:
  • the initial reports are substantially conflicting;
  • additional methodological expertise is required;
  • the statistical analysis requires specialist evaluation;
  • ethical or research-integrity questions arise;
  • the manuscript is highly interdisciplinary;
  • a revised version introduces substantial new analyses or conclusions.
The number of favorable or unfavorable reports does not automatically determine the final decision. Editors evaluate the scientific substance of each report and retain responsibility for the final editorial judgment. 
7. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
  • accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise;
  • Respond promptly to invitations;
  • Complete the review within the deadline stated in the invitation;
  • Request an extension when additional time is genuinely required;
  • evaluate the manuscript objectively and independently;
  • provide clear, evidence-based and constructive comments;
  • distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
  • treat authors respectfully and professionally;
  • assess the manuscript rather than the authors;
  • maintain strict confidentiality;
  • declare all potential conflicts of interest;
  • report suspected ethical or integrity concerns confidentially to the editor;
  • avoid recommendations intended to influence personal, institutional or journal metrics;
  • refrain from using unpublished ideas, data or methods for personal benefit;
  • Delete manuscript files after completion of the review unless otherwise instructed.
Reviewer comments must not include offensive, discriminatory, hostile, dismissive or personally directed language.
The editorial office may edit or remove inappropriate wording without changing the scientific substance of a report.
8. Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly communications.
Reviewers must not:
  • share the manuscript or supplementary files;
  • discuss the manuscript with unauthorized persons;
  • disclose that the manuscript is under review;
  • contact the authors directly;
  • use unpublished information for personal, academic, financial or competitive advantage;
  • retain or distribute copies after completing the review;
  • publicly reveal the review outcome;
  • upload the manuscript to unapproved third-party systems.
If a reviewer wishes to involve a trainee, colleague or co-reviewer, prior permission must be obtained from the editorial office. Any approved contributor must be named confidentially to the editor and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations.
Reviewer reports and identities are not disclosed publicly without explicit permission and an appropriate editorial basis.
9. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, unpublished data or review reports to public or external generative AI platforms without prior written authorization from the journal.
The use of AI tools may compromise:
  • manuscript confidentiality;
  • intellectual property;
  • participant privacy;
  • unpublished data;
  • reviewer independence;
  • the accuracy of scientific evaluation.
Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer’s own expert judgment.
When journal-authorized AI assistance is used, the reviewer must:
  • disclose its use to the editor;
  • describe the purpose for which it was used;
  • Verify all generated content;
  • remain fully responsible for the final review.
AI-generated statements, fabricated references, unverifiable claims or automated decisions are not acceptable.
10. Conflicts of Interest
Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must consider whether any relationship or activity could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.
Potential conflicts include:
  • employment or institutional relationships;
  • recent collaboration;
  • current joint research;
  • mentor–mentee relationships;
  • personal relationships;
  • financial interests;
  • consultancy;
  • intellectual property interests;
  • direct professional competition;
  • strong personal or ideological positions relating to the subject.
A reviewer who has a material conflict of interest must decline the invitation.
When uncertain, the reviewer should confidentially inform the editorial office and allow the editor to determine whether participation is appropriate.
Failure to disclose a significant conflict may result in withdrawal of the report and exclusion from future reviewing activity.
11. Ethical and Research-Integrity Concerns
Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially when they identify or reasonably suspect:
  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • simultaneous submission;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • inappropriate image manipulation;
  • unexplained statistical anomalies;
  • inconsistent participant numbers;
  • missing ethical approval;
  • inadequate informed consent;
  • unregistered clinical trials;
  • inappropriate authorship;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • misleading reporting;
  • inappropriate use of artificial intelligence;
  • citation manipulation;
  • peer-review manipulation;
  • significant overlap with another published or submitted work.
Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations, contact the authors, contact institutions or publicly discuss their concerns.
The editorial office will assess integrity concerns according to the journal’s Editorial Policies and recognized publication-ethics procedures.
12. Citation Integrity During Peer Review
Reviewers must assess whether the references are:
  • scientifically relevant;
  • sufficiently current;
  • appropriately balanced;
  • accurately represented;
  • necessary to support the claims made;
  • free from excessive or unrelated citation clusters.
Reviewers must not recommend citations solely to:
  • increase citations to their own work;
  • increase citations to the journal;
  • improve author, institutional or journal metrics;
  • promote a particular research group without scientific justification.
Any recommended citation must be directly relevant and accompanied by a scientific explanation.
Reviewers should alert the editor if they identify:
  • excessive journal self-citation;
  • inappropriate author self-citation;
  • honorary or coercive citations;
  • citation stacking;
  • irrelevant citations;
  • references that do not support the associated claim;
  • systematic omission of major external literature.
The editorial office may remove or request replacement of citations that are unnecessary, excessive, irrelevant or metric-oriented.
13. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria.
13.1 Scope and relevance
  • Is the manuscript aligned with the journal’s aims and operational scope?
  • Does it have clear medical, rehabilitation, functional or health relevance?
  • Is the topic appropriate for the journal’s readership?
13.2 Originality and contribution
  • Is the research question original or scientifically important?
  • Does the manuscript add meaningful evidence, synthesis or methodological value?
  • Is the contribution clearly distinguished from previous work?
13.3 Scientific rationale
  • Is the research question clearly stated?
  • Is the scientific background adequate and balanced?
  • Are the objectives or hypotheses justified?
13.4 Study design
  • Is the design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly described?
  • Is the sample size justified?
  • Are comparison or control groups appropriate?
  • Are sources of bias sufficiently addressed?
13.5 Methods
  • Are the methods described in sufficient detail?
  • Are interventions, measurements and outcomes reproducible?
  • Are instruments validated and appropriately used?
  • Are ethical approval and informed consent adequately reported?
13.6 Statistical analysis
  • Are the statistical methods appropriate?
  • Are assumptions, missing data and confounding factors addressed?
  • Are effect sizes and confidence intervals reported where appropriate?
  • Are causal claims supported by the design?
An additional statistical reviewer may be consulted when necessary.
13.7 Results
  • Are the results clear, internally consistent and complete?
  • Do tables and figures correspond to the text?
  • Are participant numbers consistent throughout the manuscript?
  • Are adverse events, missing data and exclusions reported?
13.8 Discussion and interpretation
  • Are the findings interpreted accurately?
  • Are alternative explanations considered?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Are conclusions proportionate to the evidence?
13.9 Reporting quality
Reviewers should assess compliance with the relevant reporting standard, including, where applicable:
  • CONSORT;
  • STROBE;
  • PRISMA 2020;
  • PRISMA-ScR;
  • CARE;
  • STARD;
  • TRIPOD or TRIPOD-AI;
  • COREQ;
  • SRQR;
  • ARRIVE.
13.10 Data and transparency
  • Is a Data Availability Statement included?
  • Are protocols, registrations or supplementary materials reported where applicable?
  • Are funding and conflicts of interest disclosed?
  • Is the use of AI transparently reported?
13.11 Presentation
  • Is the manuscript written clearly?
  • Are the title and abstract accurate?
  • Are figures and tables necessary, readable and correctly labeled?
  • Is the manuscript logically organized?
14. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept in Present Form
The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, methodological, ethical and editorial standards and requires no substantive changes.
Accept after Minor Revision
The manuscript is scientifically sound but requires limited clarification, correction or presentation improvement.
Reconsider after Major Revision
The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial changes to methods, analyses, interpretation, structure, reporting or scope positioning.
A major revision is not an acceptance decision and does not guarantee publication.
Reject
The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, including:
  • serious methodological limitations;
  • unsupported conclusions;
  • major ethical concerns;
  • insufficient originality;
  • unreliable data;
  • inadequate reporting;
  • substantial scope misalignment;
  • failure to meet scientific standards.
15. Editorial Decisions
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision.
The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor considers:
  • the scientific substance of the reports;
  • The manuscript’s relevance to the journal;
  • the methodological and ethical issues identified;
  • the authors’ responses;
  • the consistency and reliability of the evidence;
  • the journal’s editorial standards.
An editor may:
  • Request additional review;
  • seek statistical or ethical advice;
  • return a manuscript for further revision;
  • reject a manuscript despite favorable reviews when serious concerns remain;
  • accept a manuscript despite one negative recommendation when the criticism is not scientifically persuasive;
  • Withdraw a provisional acceptance before publication if new integrity, ethical, or quality concerns arise.
16. Revised Manuscripts
Authors submitting a revised manuscript must provide:
  • a detailed point-by-point response;
  • a marked version showing changes;
  • a clean, revised version;
  • explanations for recommendations not followed;
  • any newly required ethics, data, registration or reporting documents.
Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional experts.
Reviewers should evaluate whether:
  • the principal concerns were addressed;
  • new analyses are appropriate;
  • changes introduced new inconsistencies;
  • the conclusions remain supported;
  • unresolved concerns require further revision or rejection.
17. Manuscripts Authored by Editors or Editorial Board Members
Editors and Editorial Board members may submit manuscripts to the journal; however, such submissions receive no preferential treatment.
When an editor or Editorial Board member is an author:
  • The author-editor has no role in editorial screening;
  • The author-editor does not select reviewers;
  • The author-editor does not access reviewer identities;
  • The author-editor does not participate in discussions or decisions;
  • The manuscript is assigned to an independent handling editor;
  • The same peer-review, ethical, citation and quality standards apply;
  • The final decision is made independently.
When the Editor-in-Chief is an author, another qualified senior editor or independent external editor assumes full editorial authority for the manuscript.
Editorial position, institutional relationship or journal role does not guarantee acceptance, expedited review, reduced scrutiny or favorable treatment.
18. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content
Manuscripts submitted to special issues, thematic sections or guest-edited collections undergo the same editorial screening and independent peer review as regular submissions.
The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for all published content.
Guest Editors:
  • must declare conflicts of interest;
  • must follow the journal’s reviewer-selection criteria;
  • cannot make unilateral final decisions;
  • cannot handle their own manuscripts;
  • must not request inappropriate citations;
  • remain subject to oversight by the journal’s permanent editorial leadership.
19. Timeliness and Communication
Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations and complete reports within the period specified in the invitation.
A reviewer who cannot provide a timely evaluation should decline promptly or request an extension.
The journal seeks to balance timely decisions with careful scientific evaluation. Complex manuscripts, conflicting reports, ethical concerns or additional statistical review may require more time.
Authors are informed of substantive delays whenever possible.
20. Reviewer Recognition
The journal recognizes the essential contribution of peer reviewers.
Reviewers who complete a substantive and timely review may receive:
  • a personalized review certificate;
  • formal acknowledgment from the journal;
  • Inclusion in an annual reviewer acknowledgment list, subject to consent;
  • verification of reviewing activity, where supported by an approved recognition service.
Reviewer recognition does not reveal which manuscript was reviewed and does not compromise reviewer anonymity.
Certificates are issued only for completed reviews that meet the journal’s quality and professionalism standards.
Historical certificates should be placed on a separate page:
Reviewer Recognition Archive
21. Data Protection and Record Retention
Reviewer personal data are processed only for legitimate editorial and scholarly publishing purposes.
Reviewer information is not sold or used for unrelated commercial activity.
The journal securely retains relevant editorial records, including:
  • original submissions;
  • reviewer reports;
  • revised manuscripts;
  • author responses;
  • editorial correspondence;
  • decisions.
Records are maintained in accordance with applicable legal, ethical and institutional requirements.
22. Appeals and Complaints Related to Peer Review
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned scientific response.
An appeal should:
  • Identify the decision being challenged;
  • address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments;
  • provide evidence supporting reconsideration;
  • avoid personal allegations or unsupported assertions.
Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or, where a conflict exists, by an independent editor.
An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision.
Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest or editorial procedure may be submitted confidentially to the editorial office.
23. Peer-Review Forms and Submission
Reviewers should submit their completed evaluation through the journal’s secure online form.
Online Peer-Review Evaluation Form
https://bioclima.ro/Review.php
Downloadable Peer-Review Form
https://bioclima.ro/Peer.docx
Reports should normally be submitted through the online platform.
When technical difficulties prevent online submission, the completed form may be sent to:
peer@bioclima.ro
Confidential comments intended only for the editor must be clearly separated from comments intended for the authors.
24. Peer-Review Administration
Peer-Review Administration Officer:
 Viorela Bembea
Peer-Review Office:
peer@bioclima.ro
The Peer-Review Administration Officer coordinates reviewer invitations, receipt of reports, documentation, timelines, and reviewer correspondence.
Administrative coordination does not replace independent scientific assessment and does not determine final editorial decisions. 
25. Related Policies
Reviewers are encouraged to consult the following journal documents:
  • Editorial Policies 2026
  • Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy
  • Citation Integrity and Journal Self-Citation Reduction Policy
  • Artificial Intelligence Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Corrections and Retractions Policy
  • Appeals and Complaints Policy
  • Data Availability and Research Transparency Policy
26. Commitment to Review Quality
Balneo and PRM Research Journal is committed to a peer-review system that is:
Independent
Confidential
Fair
Constructive
Evidence-based
Ethically responsible
Free from metric-oriented citation pressure
Aligned with the journal’s scientific scope
The journal periodically reviews its peer-review procedures, forms and reviewer guidance to strengthen scientific quality, editorial accountability and research integrity.
Standards and Reference Framework
This peer-review policy was prepared with reference to the following international standards and guidance:
  1. Clarivate — Web of Science Core Collection: Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria
  1. Journal quality assessment includes transparent peer review, editorial rigor, content relevance, scope coherence, ethics, website accuracy, and appropriate citations.
  1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors — Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
  1. Particularly the sections on manuscript confidentiality, peer-review responsibilities, conflicts of interest, editorial integrity and the responsible use of artificial intelligence.
  1. Committee on Publication Ethics — Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
  1. Guidance on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, reviewer conduct, suspected misconduct, timeliness and constructive evaluation.
  1. Directory of Open Access Journals — Guide to Applying and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
  1. Requirements concerning clear public description of the peer-review process, independent review, editorial transparency and quality control.
  1. EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines
  1. Guidance supporting complete and transparent reporting of health research, including CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD and related standards.
Peer Review Policy last reviewed and updated: June 2026
Peer review form: http://bioclima.ro/Peer.docx