Editorial Process
The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ)
Editorial Process
At The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ), we are committed to a transparent, rigorous, and efficient editorial process that upholds the highest standards of academic publishing. From initial submission to final decision, each manuscript undergoes structured evaluation by qualified editors and peer reviewers to ensure scientific integrity, originality, and relevance to our global surgical and perioperative community.
Manuscript Receipt & Acknowledgment
Responsible: Secretary / PRO
- Receives the manuscript via email ([email protected]).
- Logs it in the manuscript collaborative tracking system.
- Sends acknowledgment email with a Manuscript ID within 2–3 working days.
- Checks for completeness using the Submission Checklist.
- Forwards technically complete manuscripts to the Editor-in-Chief.
Initial Screening
Responsible: Editor-in-Chief
- Performs initial evaluation:
Journal scope alignment, Novelty and relevance, Obvious methodological flaws, and Plagiarism/AI use red flags - May desk-reject manuscripts at this stage with a reasoned decision.
- If suitable, forwards to the Managing Editor for processing or for additional minor and major revisions communications.
Editorial Assignment
Responsible: Managing Editor
- Confirms scope relevance and overall readiness for peer review.
- Assigns the manuscript to one Editorial Board Member based on subject area.
- Ensures balance of workload among board members and section editors.
- Communicates assignment and deadline expectations.
Reviewer Selection
Responsible: Editorial Board Member
- Select 2–3 Peer Reviewers / Section Editors with relevant expertise.
- Ensure there is no conflict of interest.
- Oversees double-blind peer review process.
- Ensures timely and constructive feedback is provided.
- Issue blinded invitations with manuscript abstract and deadline.
- Manage replacements if reviewers decline or are delayed.
Peer Review
Responsible: Peer Reviewers / Section Editors
- Conduct double-blind peer review within 2–3 weeks.
- Use the TORGJ Peer Review Template to:
Assess scientific validity, originality, and ethical compliance.
Provide Major/Minor comments and overall recommendations. - Submit review reports to Editorial Board Member and Managing Editor.
Editorial Evaluation of Reviews PT. A
Responsible: Editorial Board Member
- Reviews and assesses the content of peer reviewer comments.
- Ensures that reviewer recommendations are valid, constructive, and academically sound.
- Drafts a summary recommendation based on the quality and consensus of reviews.
- Suggests an editorial decision: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject..
Editorial Evaluation of Reviews PT. B
Responsible: Managing Editor
- Reviews the summary provided by the Editorial Board Member for clarity and policy compliance.
- Confirms that all required elements (review reports, ethical approvals, revision files) are complete.
- Ensures consistency with TORGJ editorial standards.
- Forwards the complete evaluation package to the Editor-in-Chief for final decision.
Final Decision
Responsible: Editor-in-Chief
- Reviews the manuscript, peer review reports, and editorial summary.
- Makes the final publication decision.
- Communicates the decision to the corresponding author using the appropriate template.
Technical and Production Review
Responsible: Technical & Production Editor
- Checks final manuscript for formatting, figure/table quality, and reference accuracy.
- Assigns a Digital Object Identifier (DOI).
- Prepares accepted manuscripts for publication in the upcoming issue.
- Sends a copy of article to author for proof reading and acceptance prior to publication.
Publication & Indexing
Responsible: Technical & Production Editor
- Final version is published on the TORGJ website.
- Promotes on TORGJ designated media
- Article metadata is registered with Crossref (DOI).
- Authors and reviewers are acknowledged in relevant sections or reports.