Peer Review Process

The Archives of Clinical and Experimental Orthopaedics (ACEO) implements a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased double-blind peer review process designed to uphold the highest scientific and ethical standards. The process ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, based solely on academic merit, methodology, and contribution to the field of orthopaedics.

“Peer review is the backbone of credible scientific publishing — ensuring quality, fairness, and integrity in research dissemination.”

1. Overview of Review Workflow

1. Submission: Authors submit manuscripts via the OJS system following the Author Guidelines.
2. Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor screens the submission for scope, plagiarism, and basic formatting.
3. Reviewer Assignment: Two or more qualified reviewers are invited based on expertise and conflict-free profiles.
4. Peer Review Evaluation: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for originality, significance, methodology, and ethics.
5. Decision: The Editor consolidates reviewer feedback and issues a decision (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).
6. Revision: Authors revise and resubmit the manuscript addressing reviewer comments.
7. Final Decision: Post-revision, the Editor makes a final determination and notifies the author.

2. Type of Peer Review

ACEO follows a Double-Blind Review System:

• The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• This ensures impartial evaluation, preventing bias based on nationality, gender, or institutional affiliation.

3. Criteria for Reviewer Selection

• Reviewers must have demonstrable expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
• They must have no competing interests with the author(s) or research.
• Preference is given to reviewers with previous publications indexed in Scopus or PubMed.
• Reviewer performance (quality and timeliness) is periodically assessed by the Editorial Board.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide objective, constructive feedback to improve the quality of the manuscript.
• Report any ethical concerns (plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission).
• Submit reviews within the stipulated time (typically 21 days).
• Maintain confidentiality regarding manuscript content.

5. Editorial Responsibilities

• Ensure the peer review process is fair, timely, and unbiased.
• Oversee correspondence between reviewers and authors through the OJS platform.
• Evaluate reviewer comments for tone, professionalism, and relevance.
• Make final editorial decisions based on balanced feedback and journal policy.

6. Review Timeline

7. Ethical Compliance in Peer Review

• All reviews must be ethical, professional, and unbiased.
• COPE’s flowcharts are followed in case of misconduct or conflict of interest.
• Editors ensure that all ethical breaches are reported and addressed promptly.

8. Confidentiality

All materials submitted to ACEO are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors are bound by strict confidentiality agreements prohibiting disclosure, discussion, or use of unpublished data for personal research.

9. Decision Categories

• Accept: The paper meets all academic and ethical standards.
• Minor Revision: Minor improvements required before acceptance.
• Major Revision: Significant changes or reanalysis required.
• Reject: Manuscript unsuitable for publication or fails peer review standards.

10. Appeals and Resubmissions

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must include a clear justification addressing reviewer comments. Appeals are reviewed independently by a senior editor or an external expert to ensure fairness.

11. Recognition of Reviewers

• ACEO acknowledges reviewer contributions annually through certificates and published recognition lists.
• Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board or become section editors.

12. Contact and Support

13. Continuous Improvement

ACEO continuously refines its peer review procedures based on reviewer feedback, COPE recommendations, and OJS system updates to maintain transparency and efficiency.

14. Conclusion

The Peer Review Process of ACEO ensures integrity, quality, and fairness in scientific communication. Through double-blind review and ethical oversight, the journal promotes rigorous and credible orthopaedic research worldwide.