Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Orthopedic and Spine Trauma (JOST) is a peer-reviewed, open-access medical journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in orthopedic surgery, spine surgery, trauma, and related musculoskeletal fields. Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, ethical integrity, clinical relevance, and educational value of the journal.

JOST uses a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. Reviewers should therefore avoid any attempt to identify the authors and should not include identifying information in their comments.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective, constructive, and confidential assessment of the manuscript. The reviewer’s role is not only to recommend acceptance or rejection, but also to help the editors understand the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the submission and to help authors improve the quality of their work when revision is appropriate.

A useful review should assess:

- Relevance to orthopedic surgery, spine surgery, trauma, sports medicine, musculoskeletal disorders, or related fields
- Originality and clinical or scientific importance
- Appropriateness of the study design
- Methodological quality and transparency
- Ethical compliance
- Adequacy of statistical analysis
- Clarity of results
- Validity of interpretation and conclusions
- Quality of tables, figures, radiographs, and clinical images
- Relevance and accuracy of references
- Overall suitability for publication in JOST

2. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they:

- Have appropriate expertise in the subject area
- Can complete the review within the requested timeframe
- Have no conflict of interest that could affect their judgment
- Can provide an objective, fair, and constructive assessment
- Can maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and peer-review process

Reviewers should decline the invitation if the manuscript is outside their area of expertise, if they cannot complete the review on time, or if they have a conflict of interest.

Potential conflicts of interest may include recent collaboration with the authors, institutional or personal relationships, academic competition, financial interests, involvement in similar ongoing work, or any situation that could reasonably affect impartial judgment.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to JOST are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript or related materials outside the peer-review process.

Reviewers should not contact the authors directly. All communication should occur through the journal’s editorial system or editorial office.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, images, ideas, or methods obtained during peer review for personal, academic, financial, or professional advantage.

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers should not upload manuscript files, abstracts, figures, tables, patient images, or unpublished data to external artificial intelligence tools or other third-party platforms unless this is explicitly permitted by the journal.

If reviewers use any digital or language-assistance tool to improve the clarity of their own review comments, they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the review.

5. Ethical Issues

Reviewers should notify the editor if they identify or suspect any ethical concern, including but not limited to:

- Plagiarism or text recycling
- Duplicate or redundant publication
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Image manipulation
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Inadequate ethics approval
- Missing informed consent
- Patient-identifying information in text, tables, figures, or images
- Trial registration problems
- Authorship concerns
- Inappropriate or unsupported citation practices

Reviewers should describe their concerns clearly in the confidential comments to the editor.

6. What to Evaluate in Original Articles

For original research articles, reviewers should consider whether:

- The research question is clear and clinically or scientifically relevant
- The study design is appropriate for the objective
- The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly described
- The sample size is adequate or reasonably justified
- The methods are sufficiently detailed and reproducible
- The outcome measures are appropriate
- The statistical methods are suitable
- Follow-up duration is adequate, especially in surgical and trauma studies
- Complications and adverse events are reported
- Results are presented clearly and objectively
- Conclusions are directly supported by the data
- Limitations are adequately discussed

7. What to Evaluate in Review Articles and Systematic Reviews

For review articles, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides a balanced, accurate, and clinically useful synthesis of the literature.

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reviewers should consider whether:

- The research question is clearly defined
- Search strategy and databases are adequately described
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria are appropriate
- Study selection is transparent
- Risk of bias assessment is performed
- Data extraction and synthesis are appropriate
- PRISMA or other relevant reporting guidelines are followed
- Conclusions reflect the quality and limitations of the evidence

8. What to Evaluate in Case Reports, Corners and Technical Notes

For case reports and technical notes, reviewers should consider whether:

- The case or technique is genuinely educational, rare, novel, or clinically important
- The diagnostic or therapeutic challenge is clearly presented
- The discussion explains the learning point
- Patient confidentiality is protected
- Written informed consent has been obtained when required
- Images are anonymized and clinically relevant
- The manuscript avoids overgeneralization from a single case

9. Comments to Authors

Comments to authors should be constructive, respectful, specific, and useful. Reviewers should avoid vague statements such as “the manuscript is weak” without explanation.

Good reviewer comments should:

- Identify major and minor issues separately
- Explain why each concern matters
- Suggest how the authors may improve the manuscript
- Avoid personal or offensive language
- Focus on the manuscript, not the authors
- Be clear enough for authors to respond point by point

10. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when needed. These may include:

- Concerns about ethical issues
- Concerns about possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data integrity
- Comments about priority, novelty, or suitability for JOST
- Reasons for recommending rejection that should not be communicated directly to authors
- Any uncertainty about the reviewer’s own expertise or potential conflict of interest

Reviewers should avoid placing important scientific criticisms only in the confidential section if the authors need to address them.

11. Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial actions:

- Accept Submission
- Revision Required
- Resubmit for Review
- Resubmit Elsewhere
- Decline Submission

- See Comments

The final editorial decision is made by the editors. Editorial decisions are based not only on reviewer recommendations, but also on the strength of the reviewers’ arguments, the journal’s scope, methodological quality, ethical compliance, originality, clinical relevance, and overall suitability for JOST.

12. Timeliness

Reviewers are asked to respond to review invitations promptly and to submit their reviews by the assigned deadline. If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

13. Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may suggest additional references only when they are directly relevant and scientifically necessary. Reviewers should not request citation of their own work, the journal’s articles, or any other publications unless there is a clear scholarly reason.

14. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers should maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout the review process. JOST reserves the right to edit or remove reviewer comments that contain offensive language, confidential information, personal criticism, or content that is not relevant to the scientific assessment of the manuscript.

15. Contact

For questions regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the Editorial Office of JOST.