Editorial Process
At The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ), every manuscript follows a structured editorial pathway designed to support scientific integrity, originality, methodological quality, ethical publishing, and relevance to the global surgical and perioperative community.
Receipt, acknowledgment and completeness checks.
Scope, originality, quality and ethical assessment.
Independent double-blind expert review.
Editorial evaluation and final decision.
Production, proofing, DOI and publication.
From Submission to Publication
Each manuscript progresses through a defined sequence of administrative, editorial, peer-review, decision, and production stages. Responsibility is assigned at each stage to support accountability and consistency.
Manuscript Receipt & Acknowledgment
The submission is logged, checked for completeness, assigned a Manuscript ID, and acknowledged to the corresponding author.
Initial Screening
The manuscript is assessed for journal-scope alignment, relevance, novelty, obvious methodological concerns, and plagiarism or inappropriate AI-use red flags.
Editorial Assignment
Suitable manuscripts are assigned for processing and allocated to an Editorial Board Member or relevant Section Editor according to subject expertise.
Reviewer Selection
Two to three independent reviewers or Section Editors with relevant expertise are identified, screened for conflicts of interest, and invited to review.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewers assess scientific validity, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and overall suitability, and provide structured recommendations.
Editorial Evaluation of Reviews
Reviewer reports are assessed for academic quality, validity, consistency, constructiveness, and completeness before an editorial recommendation is prepared.
Final Editorial Decision
The manuscript, peer-review reports, revision history, and editorial recommendation are considered before the final publication decision is made and communicated.
Technical & Production Review
Accepted manuscripts undergo final formatting, figure and table checks, reference verification, DOI preparation, and author proof review.
Publication & Metadata Registration
The final article is published on the TORGJ website, promoted through designated channels, and its DOI metadata is registered with Crossref.
Complete submissions are acknowledged and assigned a Manuscript ID.
Reviewers are generally expected to complete structured double-blind review within this period.
Final acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
Editorial timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed. Complex manuscripts, reviewer availability, substantial revisions, ethical queries, or additional methodological assessment may extend the overall review period.
Submission, Screening & Editorial Assignment
The first stages determine whether a submission is complete, relevant to TORGJ, sufficiently prepared for further evaluation, and ready to enter the peer-review pathway.
Manuscript Receipt & Acknowledgment
Administrative Receipt & Completeness Check
Manuscripts received through the official TORGJ submission pathway are logged and checked for administrative and technical completeness before being forwarded for editorial screening.
Complete submission forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, or the author contacted where essential submission materials are missing.
Initial Screening
Editorial Suitability Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is sufficiently aligned with TORGJ’s scope, quality expectations, ethical standards, and scholarly priorities to proceed further.
Proceed to editorial processing, request preliminary minor or major amendments where appropriate, or issue a reasoned desk-rejection decision.
Editorial Assignment
Preparing the Manuscript for Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are prepared for peer review and assigned to an Editorial Board Member or appropriate Section Editor according to subject area and expertise.
Manuscript assigned to an appropriate Editorial Board Member or Section Editor and ready for independent reviewer selection.
Not Every Submission Proceeds to Peer Review
Manuscripts may be declined during initial screening where they fall outside journal scope, have fundamental methodological or ethical concerns, show significant originality issues, or are not sufficiently developed for external peer review. A reasoned editorial decision should be communicated to the corresponding author.
Reviewer Selection & Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully complete editorial screening proceed to independent expert assessment. Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, independence, absence of relevant conflicts of interest, and the ability to provide a rigorous and constructive evaluation.
Reviewer Selection
Selecting Independent Expert Reviewers
Reviewers are selected according to the manuscript’s discipline, subject matter, methodology, and the expertise required for an appropriate scientific assessment.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Independent Scientific Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript critically and constructively using the TORGJ peer-review framework, considering its scientific quality, originality, methodological integrity, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to the field.
Double-Blind Review
TORGJ uses a double-blind peer-review model in which reviewer and author identities are concealed from one another during the review process. Authors should therefore ensure that manuscripts prepared for review do not unnecessarily reveal author identity.
Possible Peer-Review Recommendations
Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process but do not themselves constitute the journal’s final publication decision.
Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly materials. Reviewers should not share, reproduce, use, or disclose unpublished manuscript content outside the review process. Any potential conflict of interest, ethical concern, suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data-integrity issue, or other research integrity concern identified during review should be reported promptly to the editorial team.
Editorial Evaluation, Revision & Final Decision
Peer-review reports are evaluated editorially before recommendations are communicated to authors. Where revision is required, authors are expected to respond systematically before the manuscript proceeds to further assessment and final editorial decision.
Editorial Evaluation of Reviews
Review Reports Are Evaluated — Not Simply Forwarded
Completed peer-review reports undergo editorial evaluation to ensure that the feedback is academically appropriate, sufficiently detailed, constructive, consistent with journal standards, and capable of supporting a fair editorial recommendation.
The assigned Editorial Board Member or Section Editor considers the scientific substance of the reviewer reports and the manuscript as a whole.
The Managing Editor reviews the reports and recommendation for completeness, consistency, clarity, and alignment with TORGJ editorial standards.
Responding to Reviewer & Editorial Comments
Where revision is requested, authors should address the comments carefully and transparently. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a clear response explaining how each substantive point has been addressed or, where a suggested change has not been made, providing an appropriate scholarly justification.
Final Editorial Decision
Final Assessment of the Manuscript
The Editor-in-Chief considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, editorial assessments, author responses, and revision history before determining the appropriate final editorial outcome.
The manuscript is accepted and can proceed to final technical and production processing.
Limited amendments remain necessary before final acceptance can be considered.
Substantial revision is required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
The manuscript is not accepted for publication following editorial assessment.
Reviewer Recommendation ≠ Final Editorial Decision
Peer reviewers provide expert recommendations to inform editorial judgment. Their recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, taking the complete editorial record into consideration.
Authors who believe that a material error, misunderstanding, or procedural concern affected an editorial decision may raise the matter through the appropriate TORGJ editorial channel. An appeal should provide a clear scholarly basis and should not consist solely of disagreement with reviewer or editorial judgment.
Production, Proofing, DOI Registration & Publication
Once a manuscript has been formally accepted, it enters the journal’s production pathway for final technical checks, formatting, author proof review, DOI registration, publication, and dissemination.
Technical & Production Review
Preparing the Accepted Manuscript for Publication
The accepted manuscript undergoes final technical and production checks to ensure consistency, readability, completeness, accurate presentation, and alignment with TORGJ publication standards.
Author Proof Review
The corresponding author may receive a publication proof for final review before release. Proof review is intended primarily to identify production, typographical, factual, or presentation errors rather than to introduce substantial new scientific content after acceptance.
Publication & Metadata Registration
Creating the Final Scholarly Record
Following completion of final production checks, the article is published on TORGJ and the relevant publication metadata are prepared and registered through the journal’s DOI infrastructure.
TORGJ Journal DOI
The journal DOI is 10.64573/torgj. Individual published articles receive their own DOI as part of the final publication process.
Crossref registration provides persistent DOI identification and scholarly metadata infrastructure. Inclusion in individual bibliographic or citation databases is governed separately by the criteria and assessment processes of those services. TORGJ therefore distinguishes DOI and metadata registration from external database indexing.
Decisions, Timelines & Editorial Standards
TORGJ applies a structured editorial process while recognising that the requirements of individual manuscripts may differ. Scientific quality, research integrity, independent peer review, and editorial judgment remain central throughout the publication pathway.
Manuscript proceeds to final technical and production processing.
Limited amendments are required before final consideration.
Substantial revision is required and the manuscript remains subject to reassessment.
Manuscript is not accepted for publication following editorial assessment.
Indicative Editorial Timelines
These targets support efficient manuscript handling, but they should not be interpreted as guaranteed publication or decision deadlines.
Target for acknowledgment and assignment of a Manuscript ID to complete submissions.
Indicative reviewer turnaround after acceptance of the review invitation.
Revision cycles, reviewer availability, methodological review, and ethical queries may affect the total timeline.
TORGJ aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining appropriate scientific and ethical scrutiny. Additional review, statistical or methodological evaluation, requests for clarification, substantial revisions, or research-integrity concerns may extend the editorial process.
Read the Supporting Policies
Editorial Enquiries
For questions regarding an existing manuscript, editorial procedure, or publication requirements, contact the TORGJ Editorial Office.
Ready to Begin the Editorial Process?
Review the Authors’ Guidelines and ensure that your manuscript and supporting documents are complete before submitting through the official TORGJ manuscript submission form.