Submissions

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:

Introduction

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.

Method

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.

Results

• 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.

Discussion

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:

Introduction

As per general guidelines

Methods

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).

Analysis
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).

Findings
• 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.

Discussion

• 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

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