The Journal of Orthopedics is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, and confidential peer-review process. Reviewers play a central role in ensuring the scientific quality, integrity, and clinical relevance of the material published in the journal.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to evaluate the manuscript objectively, maintain confidentiality, and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Peer Review Process
Manuscripts considered suitable for the journal are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process by independent experts in the relevant field.
Reviewers are asked to provide constructive comments and a recommendation to the Editor. Possible recommendations include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer comments, scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical standards, and relevance to the scope of the journal.
The journal may seek additional reviewer opinions when necessary.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- evaluate manuscripts objectively and professionally;
- provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments;
- assess the originality, scientific validity, and clinical relevance of the work;
- identify ethical concerns, potential plagiarism, or duplicate publication where suspected;
- indicate whether the conclusions are supported by the presented data;
- comment on the clarity and organization of the manuscript;
- assess the adequacy and relevance of references;
- maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
Reviewers should avoid personal criticism of authors and focus their evaluation on the scientific content of the manuscript.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts and associated materials received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
- share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
- use unpublished information for personal advantage;
- disclose details regarding the manuscript or review process.
If consultation with a colleague is considered necessary, prior approval from the Editorial Office should be obtained.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline invitations when any financial, academic, institutional, or personal conflict of interest may affect their impartiality.
Potential conflicts may include:
- recent collaboration with the authors;
- institutional affiliation with the authors;
- direct scientific competition;
- financial interests related to the subject matter.
Any potential conflict should be disclosed to the Editorial Office before accepting the review assignment.
Review Timelines
Reviewers are requested to submit their evaluations within the timeframe indicated in the invitation letter.
If reviewers anticipate delays or are unable to complete the review, they should inform the Editorial Office promptly so alternative arrangements can be made.
Ethical Standards
The journal follows the principles and recommendations of:
- the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
- the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Reviewers are encouraged to report suspected ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, or data irregularities.
Contact Information
Questions regarding the peer-review process may be directed to: