About the Journal

Created in 1989 and available online since 2013, the journal Fisioterapia em Movimento has been devoted to publish technical and scientific papers addressing issues dealing with Physical Therapy. 

Our mission

The journal´s mission is to constitute a stimulus and a means to disseminating results stemming from scientific research supported by rigorous methodology and emphasizing human health care, by publishing research articles in the field of physical therapy and related areas and endorsing interdisciplinarity.

Thematic focus

Available only in digital format since 2013, with free online access, the journal publishes papers from original researches and review articles that covers findings in the fields of physiotherapy and health. The main areas are Public Health, Geriatrics and Gerontology, Neurology, Sports Physical Therapy, Cardiopulmonary, Trauma and Orthopedics, Rheumatology, Hydrotherapy, Acupuncture, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Electrotherapy, Functional Movement Analysis, Physical therapy in Education, Ergonomics and Dermato-Functional Physiotherapy. All papers related to health and human care, though, are accepted for evaluation.

The journal´s main audience is formed by healthcare students, researchers and professionals.


Peer Review Process

This journal uses single blind peer review. Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise, and our referee database, formed by national and internationl reviewers, is constantly updated.

The editorial assistant coordinates the exchange of information between the authors, the reviewers and the editors. It is up to the editor-in-chief which articles will be accepted for publication, based on the recommendations made by the reviewers and the associate editors. If an article is rejected authors will recieve a notification along with editor-in-chief’s explanation.

The review process takes around 4-8 months. After acceptance, it currently takes 6 to 12 months to article to be published.



1. Author submits.

2. Editorial Assistant verifies if the manuscript follows all the guidelines. If so, the manuscript is sent to the Editor-in-Chief.

3. Once the established criteria are met, the Editor-in-Chief appoints an Associate Editor. Associate editors, experts in their fields, are designated according to the theme of the manuscript.

4. The Associate Editor makes an initial evaluation of the article and designates two or more reviewers. A message containing the title and the summary of the submission is sent to the reviewers, as well as an invitation to access the system and inform their availability or unavailability in evaluating the manuscript. 

ATTENTION: Both the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors verify the originality, clinical relevance and methodology of the works received. The Editor-in-Chief can reject an article immediately, in the same way that Associate Editors can recommend the rejection of a manuscript without prior submission for evaluation.

5. Reviewers score. In case of divergence of opinions, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer.

6. Associate Editor recommends decision.

7. Editor-in-Chief makes final decision and notifies the authors.

8. Editorial Assistant enters in contact with the authors to charge the publication fee. For papers submitted in Spanish or Portuguese, an English translation will be requested.


Evaluation Guidelines 

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a quality review.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  • Reviewing can be a lot of work; before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
  • Respond to the invitation as soon as you can. Delay in your decision slows down the whole process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
  • If you accept, materials you receive must be treated as confidential documents. You can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors. Check COPE guidelines for more information. 
  • Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Therefore, your opinion and general observations of the article are essential. Your comments should be constructive, and should not include any personal details.

When evaluating an article, carefully complete the evaluation form, which has the following structure:


  • Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?
  • Does the Abstract (Summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article and are the keywords listed on Decs/Mesh?
  • Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
  • Are the methods described comprehensively and are the statistical analysis accurately described?
  • Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
  • Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?

Manuscript Structure

  • Is the length of the manuscript adequate?
  • Is the number of tables and figures adequate?


  • Are the interest, quality and originality of the manuscript excellent, good, average, below average, poor?


  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject and resubmit
  • Reject


Becoming a reviewer: if you are interested in contribuing to the journal as a peer reviewer, please send us your cv.


Publication Frequency

In 2018, Fisioterapia em Movimento moved to continuous publication with a single yearly volume.

Open Access Policy

All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY.

The CC - BY license allows users to access, display, distribute, as well to adapt and create derivative works, if giving credit to the original authors. The authors, when submitting a paper, agree to transfer all copyrights by the use of the Creative Commons license.

Ethical Guidelines

Fisioterpia em Movimento journal is aligned with the manuscript qualification norms and standards established by WHO and by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Clinical trial articles will only be accepted when registered in a Clinical Trial Registry recommended by WHO and the ICMJE, and papers containing results from studies with humans and/or animals will only be accepted for publication if clear that all the ethical principles have been followed in the investigation. These papers must necessarily include a statement indicating that the research protocol has been approved by an institutional ethics committee (as established in the National Health Council Resolution 466/12 on the ethical guidelines for the development of research involving human subjects). For experiments involving animals, follow Pain international guidelines (PAIN, 16: 109-110, 1983).

As part of SciELO collection, Fisioterpia em Movimento journal follows the Guidelines on Best Practices for Strengthening Ethics in Scientific Publication, that explains concepts and actions that promote integrity in the publication process and referrals in cases of suspected or proven misconduct. 

Responsibilities of the editor-in-chief

The responsibility of the editor-in-chief includes editorial policy implementation, oversight the editorial process, and journal relations with authors, reviewers, readers, indexers, funding agencies, the scientific community, and the general public. Particularly, transparency and quality control are essential aspects of the editorial process under the editor-in-chief’s responsibilities

Identification of scientific misconduct

Regarding best practices for strengthening the ethics in scientific publication, the editorial process, after complying with the formal aspects required, ensures that all authors review and take accountability for the content. Proof may be provided by digital signature or confirmation, including whether there is any conflict of interests, which should be explicited in the publication. When there is any questioning regarding authorship, contact is to be first established with the corresponding author and, if necessary, with all authors. In case of impasse, the authors' affiliation institutions or funding agencies involved in the research development should be contacted. As far as the subjects involved in the research are concerned, the editorial process requires authors to present antecedents, such as the position of the corresponding ethics committee, authorization of the subjects involved, and clinical trial records, among others. When there is doubt or questioning, the editor-in-chief should contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors requesting completeness of the data. In order to promote the predominance of originality of the texts, the journal should adopts software for duplicity verification with already published texts. The journal informs the authors on the software in use during the article submission process. When there is doubt or questioning, the editor-in-chief should contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors. If duplicity is proven, the authors' affiliation institutions or funding agencies involved in the research development are to be contacted. When there is doubt about the inclusion of citations and their references, the cited document is checked or requested. When there is doubt or questioning, the editor-inchief should contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors. When in the evaluation process, editors or reviewers identify excess self-citing by authors and/or the journal, the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors are contacted for clarification to support decision making. Editors and reviewers should privilege impartiality, integrity and confidentiality in their evaluation, prioritizing constructive criticism and the time frame agreed with the journal. When there is doubt or questioning, the editor-in-chief should contact the corresponding editor and/or peer reviewers. The fabrication or falsification of data and images are serious cases of misconduct. The evaluation process should be judicious in identifying such misconducts. In case there are any doubts, the authors are requested to provide supporting evidence of the methodology and results. In case of proven misconduct, the editor should inform the authors’ affiliation institutions or funding agencies involved in the development of the research.

Support mechanisms on decisions regarding misconduct

The journal should inform in the Instructions to Authors how it receive reports of suspected misconduct. In cases of doubts or questioning considered previously, the journal should follow the COPE flow diagrams(2) for identification and guidance on misconduct. Eventually, in case the journal's decision is challenged, a committee of members of the editorial board, and external to the journal, should be assembled

Guidance on decision making on retractions and errata

The already published article in which misconduct is identified remains indexed in the SciELO database in the retracted condition. The retraction substantiate the reason for the withdrawal duly referenced, through a communication by the editor or another authorized agent, and published in the same journal. Retraction may be partial when the misconduct applies to a specific part of the article, without, however, compromising the set of published research. The article may not ever be “unpublished”. Cases of errors or failures, regardless of nature or origin, that do not constitute misconduct, are corrected by errata. The journal publishes as promptly as possible errata, corrections or retractions. 

Human subjects are entitled to privacy, and this right cannot be broken without a written consent term granting the permission for using and publishing the images. The use of eyes masks is not considered appropriate means of protection for maintaining anonymity.

Studies should be original and should not have already been published elsewhere in the peer-reviewed literature. We adopt the Blackboard system for identifying plagiarism.



Submissions are free. However, if the paper is accepted for publication, a R$600 fee will be charged.