Peer Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers play an essential role in supporting the scientific quality, integrity, relevance and clarity of manuscripts considered by The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ). These guidelines outline the responsibilities, ethical standards and review expectations applicable to reviewers participating in the TORGJ editorial process.
Purpose of Peer Review
TORGJ uses peer review to support rigorous and fair editorial evaluation. Reviewers provide independent scholarly assessment of manuscripts and help authors and editors identify strengths, limitations and opportunities to improve the quality and reliability of the scholarly record.
Scientific Quality
Assess the validity, originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.
Research Integrity
Consider ethical compliance, reporting integrity, transparency and potential concerns requiring editorial attention.
Constructive Improvement
Provide clear, respectful and actionable feedback that can assist authors and inform responsible editorial judgement.
Reviewer Recommendation ≠ Final Editorial Decision
Peer reviewers act as expert advisers to the editorial process. Recommendations from reviewers are considered carefully but do not constitute the final publication decision. Final decisions regarding acceptance, revision or rejection remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
Confirm Your Suitability to Review
A reviewer should accept an invitation only where they have appropriate expertise, can provide an independent assessment, have no disqualifying conflict of interest, and can reasonably complete the review within the requested timeframe.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any relationship, activity or circumstance that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their assessment of a manuscript. Where a conflict could prevent an impartial review, the reviewer should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the TORGJ Editorial Office.
If You Become Aware of an Author’s Identity
TORGJ operates a double-blind peer-review model. If a reviewer believes that they have identified an author during the review, this does not automatically invalidate the review. However, where knowledge of the possible identity creates an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest, the reviewer should notify the Editorial Office promptly and await guidance.
Manuscripts Under Review Are Confidential
Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential scholarly communications. Reviewers must protect all information obtained through the peer-review process.
Do Not Delegate a Review Without Permission
A reviewer must not independently transfer or delegate a review to a colleague, trainee or other person. If assistance is considered appropriate, prior permission should be obtained from the TORGJ Editorial Office and any contributor to the review must comply with the same confidentiality and ethical requirements.
Use of AI During Peer Review
The confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts must be protected when considering any use of artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies during peer review.
Confidential Manuscript Content Must Not Be Exposed to Unauthorised AI Systems
Reviewers must not upload a TORGJ manuscript, supplementary material, figures, tables, data, correspondence or other confidential submission material into generative AI systems or other external AI technologies where confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured.
A reviewer wishing to use AI-assisted technology to facilitate any aspect of a review must comply with the journal’s applicable policy and obtain prior permission from TORGJ where required. Any permitted use should be disclosed to the journal.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, integrity, originality and content of the review they submit. AI-generated output must never substitute for the reviewer’s own expert scholarly judgement.
Read the TORGJ Plagiarism & Generative AI Policy →What Reviewers Should Assess
The precise assessment will depend on manuscript type and subject area. Reviewers should focus on the scientific and scholarly questions relevant to the submission rather than applying an identical checklist mechanically to every article type.
Ethical and Publication-Integrity Concerns
Reviewers are not expected to investigate suspected misconduct themselves. However, credible concerns identified during review should be reported confidentially to the editorial team so that they can be assessed through the appropriate journal process.
Raise Concerns Confidentially
Potential misconduct or ethical concerns should be communicated to the editorial team through the appropriate confidential reviewer channel. Reviewers should describe the concern objectively and provide the basis for it rather than making unsupported allegations directly to authors.
Writing a Constructive Peer Review
Reviewer comments should be scholarly, specific, constructive, honest and respectful. The objective is to provide an assessment that assists editorial decision-making while giving authors clear guidance where improvement is required.
Comments to the Authors
- Briefly summarise the principal strengths and concerns.
- Separate major issues from minor issues where possible.
- Explain why requested changes are important.
- Make comments sufficiently specific to be actionable.
- Maintain professional and respectful language.
- Avoid comments concerning personal characteristics.
- Avoid requesting unnecessary citations to your own work.
Confidential Comments to the Editor
- Identify serious ethical or research-integrity concerns.
- Declare relevant conflicts or uncertainties.
- Explain important concerns that may affect suitability.
- Provide context for your overall recommendation.
- Do not contradict author-facing comments without explanation.
- Use this channel for matters requiring editorial handling.
Possible Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects their scientific assessment and provide sufficient reasoning to allow the editorial team to understand the basis of that recommendation.
Recommendations Are Advisory
TORGJ is not required to follow a reviewer’s recommendation mechanically. Reviewer reports form part of the complete editorial record considered when the Editor-in-Chief reaches the final decision.
Timeliness & Revised Manuscripts
TORGJ reviewers are generally expected to return their assessment within approximately 2–3 weeks after accepting a review invitation. A reviewer who anticipates difficulty meeting the agreed timeframe should notify the Editorial Office promptly.
Respond Promptly
Accept or decline review invitations within a reasonable period so that manuscript processing is not unnecessarily delayed.
Meet the Agreed Timeline
Complete the assessment within the requested timeframe or contact the Editorial Office as early as possible if an extension may be necessary.
Review Revisions Where Requested
Reviewers may be invited to reassess a revised manuscript, particularly where substantial scientific concerns were raised during the initial review.
Double-Blind Peer Review & Reviewer Confidentiality
TORGJ uses a double-blind peer-review model in which author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during the review process. Reviewers should not attempt to identify or contact authors and should not disclose their own identity within comments intended for authors.
TORGJ Peer Reviewer Network
TORGJ is supported by a multidisciplinary international pool of suitably qualified reviewers. Participation in the reviewer network does not mean that an individual’s assignment to a particular manuscript will be publicly disclosed. Manuscript-level reviewer assignments remain confidential in accordance with the journal’s peer-review model.
Acceptance of a TORGJ Review Invitation
By accepting an invitation to review for The Operating Room Global Journal, the reviewer confirms that they will undertake the assessment independently and in good faith; protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process; disclose relevant competing interests; comply with applicable journal policies; provide a professional and evidence-informed review; and promptly inform the Editorial Office of any circumstance that may materially affect their ability to complete an appropriate review.
Interested in Becoming a TORGJ Peer Reviewer?
TORGJ welcomes expressions of interest from suitably qualified clinicians, researchers, academics and professionals across surgery, anaesthesiology, perioperative care, nursing, allied health, global surgery, healthcare innovation, education, management sciences and related disciplines.
Contact the Editorial Office → Peer Review Policy for Authors → View Editorial Process →