Traditionally, peer review functioned primarily as a gatekeeping mechanism designed to assess methodological validity, originality, and scholarly contribution prior to publication. For many decades, single-blind or double-blind review systems provided an effective framework for maintaining academic standards across disciplines (Farrell et al., 2017). In exercise rehabilitation research, this process supported the development of evidence-based interventions addressing functional recovery, chronic disease management, aging-related decline, and neurological rehabilitation. As the scope of the discipline expanded toward multidisciplinary integration with physiology, neuroscience, biomechanics, and public health, the expectations placed on reviewers similarly increased in both breadth and complexity.

The rapid growth of global research productivity has significantly reshaped editorial workflows across scientific journals. The number of manuscript submissions continues to increase annually, while expectations for rapid editorial decisions have intensified. This shift has placed considerable pressure on reviewers, editors, and publishers alike. Reviewer fatigue has emerged as a recognized concern across many academic communities, particularly in specialized interdisciplinary areas such as exercise rehabilitation where qualified reviewers must evaluate clinical relevance, statistical validity, and mechanistic interpretation simultaneously (Tennant et al., 2017). As a result, peer review is increasingly understood not only as a quality control mechanism but also as a collaborative scholarly responsibility shared across the research community.

At the same time, broader movements toward open science have introduced new expectations regarding transparency and accountability in the evaluation of scientific manuscripts. Authors, readers, and institutions increasingly seek clearer insight into editorial decision-making processes, reviewer contributions, and methodological reproducibility. Emerging models such as open peer review and postpublication commentary reflect this shift toward a more transparent and interactive evaluation system (Ross-Hellauer, 2017). Rather than functioning solely as a prepublication filter, peer review is gradually becoming part of an ongoing scientific dialogue that continues beyond initial acceptance.

Digital transformation has further accelerated this evolution. Online submission platforms, plagiarism detection tools, statistical verification software, and reporting guideline checklists now support editors and reviewers in maintaining methodological consistency across manuscripts. In fields such as exercise rehabilitation—where intervention fidelity, participant characteristics, and measurement standardization strongly influence interpretation-these tools contribute meaningfully to improving reporting clarity and research reliability. Importantly, digital infrastructure has also enabled broader international collaboration, allowing journals to engage reviewers from diverse disciplinary and geographic backgrounds (Ioannidis, 2018).

Artificial intelligence has begun to influence editorial workflows by assisting with language refinement, reporting completeness checks, and early-stage methodological screening. While these technologies cannot replace expert judgment, they offer practical opportunities to improve efficiency and consistency in manuscript evaluation (Mrowinski et al., 2017). When used responsibly, such tools may help reviewers focus more fully on conceptual interpretation, clinical relevance, and translational significance—areas that remain central to exercise rehabilitation research (Nosek et al., 2015).

Despite these advances, several important challenges remain. Variability in review quality continues to affect editorial consistency across journals, and reviewer contributions are still often undervalued relative to their importance in maintaining scientific integrity. Recognizing peer review as a scholarly contribution in its own right may represent an important step toward sustaining reviewer engagement in the future. In addition, strengthening structured reviewer guidance and encouraging interdisciplinary evaluation frameworks may further enhance the reliability of manuscript assessment within rehabilitation sciences (Boden-Albala et al., 2023).

Looking forward, the future of peer review will likely involve hybrid models that combine traditional anonymous evaluation with greater transparency, structured methodological assessment, and broader community engagement. Such developments are particularly relevant for exercise rehabilitation research, where integrating physiological mechanisms with clinical outcomes requires careful interpretation across multiple domains of expertise. Strengthening peer-review systems will therefore remain essential for supporting high-quality evidence that informs rehabilitation practice, promotes functional independence, and improves quality of life across diverse populations.

Ultimately, the evolution of manuscript peer review reflects a broader transformation in how scientific knowledge is evaluated and shared. As research in exercise rehabilitation continues to expand in scope and societal relevance, maintaining rigorous, transparent, and collaborative peer-review systems will be essential for ensuring that published evidence continues to support both scientific advancement and clinical application.