Login or Register to make a submission.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
  • The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or PDF document file format.
  • Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
  • The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Author Guidelines

General information

Declaration of interests

The authors are requested to identify all funding sources, where applicable, in the production of this manuscript. All authors are required to submit any financial and personal relationships that may influence the bias of this manuscript. This may include but is not limited to funding sources, current employment of the author or significant other, company investments, patent applications etc.


All contributors who do not meet the requirements of authorship should be acknowledged. These may be individuals responsible for data analysis, writing assistance or those who have offered support to the study such as a department lead.

Manuscript categories and word count

Original research/audit using quantitative data – maximum word count 3,000 words

Original research/audit using qualitative data –maximum word count 4000 words

Systematic/~Systematised reviews – maximum word count 5,000 words

Narrative reviews – max. 3,000 words

Case reports – max. 2,000 words

Letters to the editors – max. 500 words

Book Reviews-max 1500 words

Reflective pieces- max 1500


Referencing should comply with the standard APA style (7th edition). 


The Abstract should not exceed 500 words. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract. The abstract must include the following separate sections:

  • Background: the context and purpose of the study
  • Methods: how the study was performed and statistical tests used
  • Results: the main findings
  • Conclusions: brief summary and potential implications


Three to six words representing the main content of the article.

Consent for publication

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including any individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person. All presentations of case reports must have consent for publication.

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. 

Original research/audit using quantitative data

This section is for quantitative articles. Apart from the main guidelines, you can also read the following to help your submission:


Briefly review the literature, emphasizing pertinent and relevant findings, methodological issues, and gaps in understanding. Conclude the introduction with a statement of purpose, your research questions, and, where relevant, your hypotheses; clearly explain the rationale for each hypothesis.


Explain your study in enough detail that it could be replicated.

Participants: Clearly state whether there is a population that you would ideally want to generalize to; explain the characteristics of that population. Explain your sampling procedure. If you are using a convenience sample, be sure to say so. Arguments for representativeness can be strengthened by comparing characteristics of the sample with that of the population on a range of variables. Describe the characteristics and size of the sample. When appropriate, describe how participants were assigned to groups.

Measures: Summarize all instruments in terms of both descriptions and measurement properties (i.e., reliability and validity). Provide estimates of the reliability of the scores in your sample in addition to reliability estimates provided by test publishers, other researchers, or both; when you make judgments about performance or when language samples are coded for linguistic characteristics, include estimates of classification dependability or coder agreement.

Procedure. Describe the conditions under which you administered your instruments.

  • Design: Make clear what type of study you have done–was your study evaluating a priori hypotheses, or was it exploratory in order to generate hypotheses? Explain your design, and state whether your comparisons were within-subjects, between subjects, or both. Refer to standard works such as textbooks for study designs. Describe the methods used to deal with experimenter bias if you collected the data yourself. If you assigned participants to subgroups, explain how you did so. If you used random assignment, tell the readers how the randomization was done (e.g., coin toss, random numbers table, computerized random numbers generation). If you did not use random assignment, explain relevant covariates and the way you measured and adjusted for them, either statistically or by design. Describe the characteristics and size of the subgroups. In place of the terms experimental group and control group, use treatment group and contrast group.
  • Variables. Define the variables in the study. Make explicit the link between the theoretical constructs and the way(s) they have been operationalized in your study. Define the role of each variable in your study (e.g., dependent, independent, moderating, control). Explain how you measured or otherwise observed the variables.
  • Power and sample size. Provide information on the sample size and the process that led to the decision to use that size. Provide information on the anticipated effect size as you have estimated it from previous research. Provide the alpha level used in the study, discussing the risk of Type I error. Provide the power of your study (calculate it using a standard reference such as Cohen, 1988, or a computer program). Discuss the risk of Type II error.


  • Explain the data collected and their statistical treatment as well as all relevant results in relation to your research questions. Interpretation of results is not appropriate in this section.
  • Report unanticipated events that occurred during your data collection. Explain how the actual analysis differs from the planned analysis. Explain your handling of missing data.
  • Explain the techniques you used to "clean" your data set.
  • Choose a minimally sufficient statistical procedure; provide a rationale for its use and a textbook reference for it. Specify any computer programs used.
  • Describe the assumptions for each procedure and the steps you took to ensure that they were not violated.
  • When using inferential statistics, provide the descriptive statistics, confidence intervals, and sample sizes for each variable as well as the value of the test statistic, its direction, the degrees of freedom, and the significance level (report the actual p-value).
  • Always supplement the reporting of an actual p-value with a measure of effect magnitude (e.g., measures of strength of association or measures of effect size). Briefly contextualize the magnitude of the effect in theoretical and practical terms. Confidence intervals for the effect magnitudes of principal outcomes are recommended.
  • If you use multiple statistical analyses (e.g., t-tests, analyses of variance, correlations), make the required adjustments to the alpha level (e.g., a Bonferroni correction).
  • Avoid inferring causality, particularly in nonrandomized designs or without further experimentation.
  • Use tables to provide exact values; present all values with two places to the right of the decimal point.
  • Use figures to convey global effects. Keep figures small in size; include graphic representations of confidence intervals whenever possible.
  • Always tell the reader what to look for in tables and figures.


Interpretation. Clearly state your findings for each of your research questions and their associated hypotheses. State similarities and differences with effect sizes reported in the literature. Discuss whether features of the methodology and analysis are strong enough to support strong conclusions.

Limitations and Conclusions

Note the weaknesses of your study. Identify the theoretical and practical implications of your study. Discuss limitations and suggest improvements to your study. Provide recommendations for future research that are thoughtful and grounded both in terms of your results and in the literature.


Original research/audit using qualitative data

This section is for qualitative articles. In addition to the general instructions, please read  and include the following when appropriate:


As per general guidelines


Research Design Overview
• Summarize the research design (data-collection strategies, data-analytic strategies) and, if illuminating, approaches to inquiry (e.g., descriptive, interpretive, feminist, psychoanalytic, postpositivist, critical, postmodern or constructivist, pragmatic approaches).
• Provide the rationale for the design selected.
Recruitment Process
• Describe the rationale for the decision to halt data collection (e.g., saturation).
• Provide a rationale for the number of participants chosen.

Participant Selection
• Describe the participants/data sources selection process (e.g., purposive sampling methods such as maximum variation, diversity sampling, or convenience sampling methods such as snowball selection, theoretical sampling), inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Data Collection
• State the form of data collected (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, media, observation).
• Describe any alterations of data-collection strategy in response to the evolving findings or the study rationale.
• For interview and written studies indicate the mean and range of the time duration in the data-collection process (e.g., “interviews were held for 75 to 110 min, with an average interview time of 90 min”).
• Describe questions asked in data collection: Content of central questions, a form of questions (e.g., open vs. closed).

Data-Analytic Strategies
• Describe the methods and procedures used and for what purpose/goal.
• Explicate in detail the process of analysis, including some discussion of the procedures (e.g., coding, thematic analysis, etc.) with a principle of transparency.
• Describe the process of arriving at an analytic scheme, if applicable (e.g., if one was developed before or during the analysis or was emergent throughout).
• Provide illustrations and descriptions of their development, if relevant.
• Indicate software, if used.

Discuss Methodological Integrity
• Assess the adequacy of the data in terms of its ability to capture forms of diversity most relevant to the question, research goals, and inquiry approach.
• Describe how the researchers’ perspectives were managed in both the data collection and analysis (e.g., to limit their effect on the data collection, to structure the analysis).
• Demonstrate that findings are grounded in the evidence (e.g., using quotes, excerpts, or descriptions of researchers’ engagement in data collection).
• Demonstrate that the contributions are insightful and meaningful (e.g., in relation to the current literature and the study goal).

• Although findings may or may not include quantified information, depending upon the study’s goals, approach to inquiry, and study characteristics, we encourage authors to include even simple quantified information about the qualitative findings (themes), recognizing that this will assist many readers in understanding the relative importance or frequency of themes.


• Identify the study’s strengths and limitations (e.g., consider how the quality, source, or types of the data or the analytic processes might support or weaken its methodological integrity).
• Describe the limits of the scope of transferability (e.g., what should readers bear in mind when using findings across contexts).
• Consider the implications for future research, policy, or practice.

You may also include in Appendix
• Transcripts/data collected returned to participants for feedback.
• Checks on the interview thoroughness or interviewer demands.
• Consensus or auditing process.
• Member checks or participant feedback on findings.
• Data displays/matrices.
• In-depth thick description, case examples, illustrations.
• Structured methods of researcher reflexivity (e.g., sending memos, field notes, diary, log books, journals, bracketing).
• Checks on the utility of findings in responding to the study problem (e.g., an evaluation of whether a solution worked).

Systematic/systematised reviews

This section is for Systematic/systematised articles. All submissions undergo a peer-review process. Submissions must comply with submissions guidelines.

We encourage authors to register the protocol for their Systematic Review prospectively in the PROSPERO database and endorses the PRISMA Statement; systematic reviews and meta-analyses must adhere to these guidelines.

Systematic Reviews supports the complete and transparent reporting of research. The Editors require the submission of a populated checklist and figure from the relevant reporting guidelines, including PRISMA checklist and flow diagram or the most appropriate PRISMA extension for variations to the standard systematic reviews methodology. The flow diagram should be included in the main body of the text and the checklist should be provided as an additional file, both the flow diagram and the checklist should be referenced in the text. Submissions received without these elements will be returned to the authors as incomplete. A Word file of the checklist and flow diagram can be downloaded here.

It is understood that for some systematic reviews certain aspects of the report may not comply fully with the PRISMA checklist. The checklist will not be used as a tool for judging the suitability of manuscripts for publication in Systematic Reviews, but is intended as an aid to authors to clearly, completely, and transparently let reviewers and readers know what authors did and found. Using the PRISMA guideline to write the completed systematic review report, completing the PRISMA checklist, and constructing a flow diagram are likely to optimize the quality of reporting and make the peer review process more efficient. 

Please follow the general instructions for submission. 

Case Reports/Case reports

We encourage the publication of original and interesting case reports that contribute significantly to physiotherapy knowledge.
Manuscripts may meet one of the following criteria (some examples):

1. Presentation of an interesting patient/case
2. Unexpected or unusual presentations of disease and the complication to intervention.
3. New associations or variations in the use of guidelines while treating a patient
4. Presentations, diagnoses and/or management of different conditions.
5. An unexpected event in the course of observing or treating a patient.
6. Findings that shed new light on the possible treatment of a patient

  • Case reports should include an up-to-date review of all previous cases in the field.
  • Authors should seek written and signed consent to publish the information from the patients-if appropriate- prior to submission. e.g. "Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying images". The editorial office may request copies of the informed consent documentation upon submission of the manuscript.

Preparing the manuscript

Title page 

The title page should:

  • present a title that includes, if appropriate, the study design e.g.:
  • list the full names and institutional addresses for all authors
  • indicate the corresponding author


The abstract is not necessary in a case study. The abstract should not exceed 350 words. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract. The abstract must include the following separate sections:

  • Background: why the case should be reported and its novelty
  • Case presentation: a brief description of the patient’s clinical and demographic details, the diagnosis, any interventions and the outcomes
  • Conclusions: a brief summary of the clinical impact or potential implications of the case report


Three to six keywords representing the main content of the article.


The Background section should explain the background to the case report or study, its aims, a summary of the existing literature.

Case presentation

This section should include a description of the patient’s/patients relevant demographic details, medical history, symptoms and signs, treatment or intervention, outcomes, and any other significant details.


This should state clearly the main conclusions and include an explanation of their relevance or importance to the field.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Narrative reviews

This section is for academic narrative articles. All submissions undergo a peer-review process. Submissions must comply with submissions guidelines. Please follow the general instructions for submission. 

Letters to the editors

A Letter to the Editor generally takes one of the following forms:

  • A substantial re-analysis of a previously published article in JPWH
  • An article that may not cover 'standard research' but that is of general interest to the broad readership of JPWH
  • A brief report of cases or research findings adequate for the journal's scope and of particular interest to the community.
  • A reflection on a published article in JPWH or elsewhere and or conference presentations

The Letter to the Editor for JPWH should start with "To the Editor", and contain the body of the article of not longer than 500 words which may be broken into subsections with short, informative headings. No Abstract is necessary.

Letters to the Editor may be edited for clarity or length and may  not be subject to peer review 

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Who are we?

In this Privacy Notice, the terms "we", "our", and "us" refer to Coventry University and ACPOHE, Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Occupational Health and Ergonomics.

ACPOHE and Coventry University control your personal data, and we are responsible for looking after it, and we will use it fairly, lawfully, and in a transparent manner.


We are committed to protecting your privacy. This notice will help you understand how we look after, use, store and share your personal data, and how we meet our obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 and the Data Protection Act 2018 (Data Protection Laws). It supplements any other notices or statements we may provide to you.

The journal facilitates the publishing of internationally read, written, and peer-reviewed research via an edited open-access academic journal.

For the purposes of the General Data Protection Regulations 2016 and Data Protection Act 2018, the University is the data controller for personal data stored within the system. Authors will retain their rights to their publications.

What personal data do we collect?

"Personal data" is any information from which you can be identified, e.g. name, date of birth, contact details, identification numbers, photographs, and expressions of opinion about you.

The type of personal data we collect, and how we process it, can vary depending on your interactions with us. We have grouped it together as follows:

  • Identity Data includes first name, middle name, last name, affiliation, country, username and login details or similar identifiers.
  • Contact Data includes an email address.
  • Technical Data includes internet protocol (IP) address, your login data, browser type and version, time zone setting and location, browser plug-in types and versions, operating system and platform and other technology on the devices you use to access this website.
  • Usage Data includes information about how you use our website and services and whatever particular information you are interested in. 

Why do we need personal data and how do we use it?

  1. Authors:
  • To peer review any submitted articles for suitability.
  • To review responses on the submitted articles and to accept, reject or request further modifications prior to re-submission.
  • To allocate the article to a specific future issue.
  • To copy and edit the article and ask the lead author for clarifications/corrections and acceptance of the proof before publication.
  • To contact a co-author of the article, in the absence of a response from the lead author.
  • To notify authors once the issue is published.
  • If an article is published that is in the area of interest to you as an author, an editor of the journal may contact you to offer an opportunity to register as a Peer Reviewer.
  1. Peer Reviewers:
  • To contact you to request a peer review of new submissions when you have registered as a peer reviewer and listed the areas of interest (e.g. research leadership, open access, impact and evaluation).
  • To email potential reviewers and invite them to register as a peer-reviewed with the Journal.
  • To contact you to follow up on the status of an outstanding review or seek further clarifications.
  1. Editors:
  • To add new editors to the system.
  • To seek new editors in the academia and professional communities who may be interested in becoming an editor and to ask you to register with the Journal.
  • To contact you to offer an opportunity to become the editor for the Journal.
  • To provide advice and guidance on submissions and to edit contributions.
  1. Readers:
  • To send you alerts for new announcements or a new issue of the Journal.
  1. Newsletters and Announcements:
  • If you subscribed to the Journal to send you announcements about new publications, conferences, events and any information that you may find of interest. You can manage your alerts at any time from your Profile.

Complaints and questions

We have appointed a Data Protection Officer to oversee compliance with this Privacy Notice. If you have any concerns or complaints about it, please contact the Data Protection Officer, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB or email 

If you are not satisfied with the proposed resolution of your complaint, you have the right to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further information can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at or via their helpline on 0303 123 1113.

We reserve the right to update this Privacy Notice at any time. Any updated versions will be made available on our website.