Reviewer Guidelines

The Archives of Clinical and Experimental Orthopaedics (ACEO) relies on the expertise and integrity of reviewers to maintain the highest scientific and ethical standards. Reviewers play an essential role in ensuring accuracy, originality, and quality in the publication process. The following guidelines define reviewer duties, expectations, and ethical conduct in accordance with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

“Peer review is not a formality — it is the cornerstone of academic integrity and scientific advancement.”

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process evaluates the quality, significance, and validity of submitted manuscripts, ensuring that only scientifically sound and ethically conducted research is published. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased feedback that helps authors improve their work.

2. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

• Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.
• Invitations must be accepted only if the reviewer can commit to submitting their report within the agreed timeline (typically 14–21 days).
• If unavailable, reviewers should decline promptly or suggest qualified alternatives.

3. Reviewer Ethics and Conduct

• Reviews must be objective, fair, and grounded in evidence.
• Criticism should be constructive, never personal or derogatory.
• Reviewers must not contact authors directly during or after review.
• Confidentiality must be maintained for all materials and communications.

4. Confidentiality

• All manuscripts are confidential and may not be shared with others without editorial permission.
• Information obtained through peer review cannot be used for personal advantage, academic gain, or to harm another researcher’s reputation.
• Reviewer comments and identities remain confidential unless disclosed by mutual consent.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their judgment, including:

• Personal or professional relationships with the authors.
• Financial or institutional affiliations that may influence objectivity.
• Competitive research in the same area.

If a conflict is identified, reviewers should immediately inform the editor and decline the review assignment.

6. Evaluating Manuscripts

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript for the following criteria:

• Scientific soundness and originality of research.
• Clarity, structure, and readability of the manuscript.
• Appropriate use of methods and statistical analyses.
• Ethical compliance in human or animal studies.
• Relevance to the scope of ACEO and contribution to orthopaedic science.

7. Writing the Review Report

• Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript’s objective and findings.
• Provide specific comments on methodology, analysis, and data presentation.
• Highlight strengths before addressing weaknesses.
• Offer actionable suggestions for improvement.
• Separate confidential comments for the editor when necessary.

Example: “The introduction clearly defines the research gap; however, additional references are needed to support the methodology. I recommend revision to include recent clinical trials.”

8. Review Categories and Recommendations

Reviewers must select one of the following recommendations:

9. Timeliness and Accountability

• Reviews should be submitted within the agreed timeframe.
• Delays must be communicated promptly to the editorial office.
• Reviewers who consistently delay or provide poor-quality reviews may be removed from the reviewer database.

10. Ethical Awareness

Reviewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with COPE guidelines and the principles of ethical peer review. Continuous learning ensures unbiased, informed evaluation aligned with global research integrity standards.

11. Recognition and Acknowledgment

• ACEO recognizes reviewers through annual certificates and acknowledgment lists (with consent).
• Exceptional reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board.

12. Reviewer Misconduct

Violations such as plagiarism, breach of confidentiality, or unprofessional conduct will result in removal from ACEO’s reviewer pool and notification to institutional authorities if warranted.

13. Communication and Support

14. Conclusion

The Reviewer Guidelines uphold ACEO’s mission to maintain scientific excellence through ethical and constructive peer review. Reviewers serve as the guardians of academic integrity, helping shape a trustworthy and impactful body of orthopaedic research.