Reviewer's Responsibilities

The Archives of Clinical and Experimental Orthopaedics (ACEO) recognizes peer reviewers as key contributors to the quality and credibility of published research. Reviewers are entrusted with maintaining objectivity, integrity, and confidentiality during the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. These responsibilities align with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations.

“A responsible reviewer is a silent guardian of scientific truth — committed to fairness, ethics, and scholarly rigor.”

1. Objectivity and Fairness

• Reviewers must assess manuscripts impartially, based solely on content quality and scientific merit.
• Criticism should be constructive, never personal or disparaging.
• Cultural, gender, institutional, or national biases must be strictly avoided.

2. Confidentiality

• All materials under review are strictly confidential and must not be discussed or shared outside the review process.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished data or findings for personal research or benefit.
• Review reports remain the property of the journal and are not to be redistributed.

3. Conflicts of Interest

• Reviewers must declare any financial, institutional, or personal conflicts that could bias their evaluation.
• If a conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the assignment promptly.
• Common examples include reviewing papers from collaborators, competitors, or institutions of employment.

4. Timeliness and Commitment

• Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can commit to timely completion.
• The typical ACEO review period is 14–21 days.
• Delays must be communicated to the editorial office immediately.

5. Quality of Review Reports

A high-quality review should be clear, specific, and constructive. It must:

• Summarize the study’s aims and contributions.
• Evaluate methodology, data validity, and interpretation of results.
• Identify ethical or procedural flaws if present.
• Provide detailed, actionable suggestions for improvement.

Example: “While the data collection is thorough, the statistical analysis lacks validation. The author should perform a sensitivity analysis to confirm robustness.”

6. Ethical Oversight

• Report suspected plagiarism, duplication, or unethical research practices to the editor immediately.
• Do not investigate on your own; all concerns should be referred confidentially.
• Ensure compliance with research ethics, particularly in clinical and animal studies.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

Reviewers must not use AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard) to generate or summarize reviews without full disclosure. If used, reviewers remain responsible for the content and must ensure confidentiality of manuscript data.

8. Respectful Communication

• Feedback should be conveyed respectfully and free from bias.
• Reviewers should avoid language that may be perceived as dismissive or hostile.
• Professional decorum is mandatory in all correspondence.

9. Collaboration and Mentorship

• Reviewers may consult junior researchers only with prior editorial approval.
• When mentoring a trainee reviewer, confidentiality must be preserved.
• Co-reviewer names must be disclosed to the editor at submission of the report.

10. Data Verification

Reviewers are encouraged to verify statistical analyses and data interpretations when possible. Any data inconsistencies or fabrication suspicions must be promptly reported to the editorial office.

11. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

• ACEO provides annual Reviewer Certificates for completed and approved reviews.
• Outstanding reviewers are acknowledged publicly and may be considered for editorial positions.
• Reviewers gain free access to select ACEO publications and editorial training modules.

12. Appeals and Complaints

If reviewers face misconduct or ethical dilemmas, they may report directly to the Editor-in-Chief. All reports are treated confidentially and reviewed by the ethics committee.

13. Reviewer Performance Monitoring

• Each review is evaluated for quality, constructiveness, and timeliness.
• Repeated poor-quality or biased reviews result in removal from the reviewer database.

14. Contact and Support

15. Conclusion

The Reviewer’s Responsibilities Policy ensures that all peer reviewers at ACEO act with professionalism, integrity, and fairness. Through rigorous, ethical reviewing, ACEO maintains its commitment to transparency and the advancement of orthopaedic science.