Peer Review Policy

The Archives of Clinical and Experimental Orthopaedics (ACEO) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the integrity, quality, and academic merit of all manuscripts submitted. The policy follows the ethical standards set by COPE, ICMJE, and WAME.

“Peer review is the backbone of scientific publishing — it ensures objectivity, accuracy, and fairness.”

Types of Peer Review

ACEO follows the Double-Blind Review model, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. This model prevents bias based on nationality, gender, institution, or seniority.

Review Workflow

All manuscripts follow a standardized review process that ensures consistency and transparency:

1. Initial Screening: Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism, formatting, and scope compliance.
2. Editor Assignment: An Associate Editor assigns reviewers based on subject expertise.
3. Double-Blind Review: At least two independent experts evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methods, and contribution.
4. Decision: Based on reviewer feedback, the editor decides to Accept, Revise, or Reject.
5. Revision: Authors address reviewer comments with a detailed response letter.
6. Final Evaluation: Editor-in-Chief reviews the final version before acceptance.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are chosen for their subject expertise, publication history, and ethical standards. Each reviewer must:

• Hold relevant academic qualifications in the field.
• Have no conflict of interest with the manuscript’s authors.
• Agree to confidentiality and anonymity.
• Provide timely, constructive, and unbiased feedback.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Maintain confidentiality of all materials and communications.
• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and avoid personal bias.
• Identify ethical issues such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or duplicate submission.
• Provide clear, evidence-based comments to improve the manuscript.
• Report conflicts of interest to the editor immediately.

Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made solely based on the scientific quality of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority on acceptance, guided by reviewer recommendations and ethical policies.

“Acceptance decisions are based on merit — not influence, affiliation, or funding.”

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, peer review reports, and communications are strictly confidential. Reviewers may not share or discuss manuscripts outside the review process without explicit permission from the editorial office.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts, including financial, personal, or academic relationships that could affect impartiality. Conflicted individuals are excluded from the review process.

Ethical Oversight in Peer Review

Suspected ethical violations discovered during review (e.g., plagiarism, image manipulation, data fabrication) are reported immediately to the Editor-in-Chief. Cases are handled according to COPE’s Flowcharts for Ethical Oversight.

Timelines and Reviewer Conduct

To ensure prompt decisions and author satisfaction, ACEO enforces strict timeframes for review completion:

Double-Blind Policy Enforcement

• Manuscripts are anonymized before being sent to reviewers.
• Authors are advised not to include identifying information within the text or file metadata.
• Reviewer identities remain undisclosed even after publication.

Appeals and Reconsiderations

Authors may appeal editorial decisions within 30 days by submitting a detailed justification addressing reviewer comments. Appeals are evaluated by an independent editorial committee to ensure fairness.

Post-Publication Review and Corrections

ACEO supports post-publication discussions through correspondence and “Letters to the Editor.” Significant post-publication concerns are investigated, and corrections or retractions are issued as necessary.

Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge contributions, ACEO offers:

• Official reviewer certificates.
• Inclusion in the annual “Reviewer Acknowledgment” page.
• Consideration for the “Outstanding Reviewer Award.”

Ethical Standards Compliance

This policy aligns with:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• ICMJE Recommendations for Manuscript Evaluation
• WAME Best Practices for Peer Review

Conclusion

By adhering to its rigorous Peer Review Policy, ACEO ensures fairness, transparency, and credibility in scholarly publishing. Every review contributes to the continuous improvement of research quality in orthopaedics and allied disciplines.