Peer Review Policy

The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ)

At TORGJ, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of editorial integrity, scientific rigour, and fairness. Our peer review policy supports our aim to publish high-quality research, innovations and educational work in perioperative, surgical and allied health sciences globally.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is an essential quality-assurance mechanism. It helps:

  • Ensure that submissions are original, ethically sound, methodologically robust, and relevant to our journal’s scope.
  • Provide authors with constructive feedback to improve their work prior to publication.
  • Enable the Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief to make informed decisions about acceptance, revision or rejection.

2. Review Model

  • TORGJ uses a double-blind peer review model: authors’ identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewers’ identities are withheld from authors.
  • At least two independent expert reviewers are invited to evaluate each full research manuscript.
  • The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor may also invite a specialist reviewer (e.g., statistical, methodological) where required.
  • For non-research content (e.g., opinion pieces, case studies, invited commentaries) a modified review may apply, and this will be clearly indicated in the article footnote (“Provenance and Peer Review”).

3. Review Criteria

Each manuscript is evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Fit with the journal’s scope: perioperative/surgical systems, education, global health, innovation.
  • Originality and significance of the research or work.
  • Appropriateness and rigour of methodology, data analysis, and conclusions.
  • Clarity of writing, argumentation, structure, and reference to relevant literature.
  • Ethical compliance: human/animal research approvals, consent, conflict of interest disclosures.
  • Data transparency and reproducibility where applicable.
  • Compliance with journal formatting, style and referencing standards.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

When accepting a review invitation, reviewers commit to:

  • Completing their report within the stipulated timeframe, or notifying the Editorial Office promptly if they cannot.
  • Declaring any conflict of interest or bias that may affect their capacity to review the manuscript impartially.
  • Treating the manuscript and its content as confidential, not disclosing or sharing with third parties.
  • Providing a constructive, respectful and clear evaluation, highlighting strengths, and giving actionable suggestions for improvement.
  • Submitting a recommendation to the Editor (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject) along with comments for the author and confidential comments for the Editor if needed.

5. Author Responsibilities

Authors must:

  • Submit original work that has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.
  • Adhere to ethical standards (human/animal research ethics, consent, conflicts of interest, data integrity).
  • Ensure that figures, tables, and supplementary material accurately represent the work.
  • Respond to reviewer comments in good faith, providing a detailed response letter when revising.
  • Conform to the journal’s formatting, referencing, DOI/metadata and open access licensing policy.

6. Editorial Decision Process

  • On submission, the editorial office performs an initial screening (desk review) to check scope, formatting, ethical compliance and novelty.
  • Manuscripts passing the desk review are sent to reviewers; the Editor considers all reviewer reports and comments, and makes a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  • If revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and detailed response to reviewers. The revised submission may be sent back to the original reviewers or a new reviewer, depending on the extent of revision.
  • Final acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated Associate Editor.
  • After acceptance, the article passes into production (copy-editing, typesetting, proofing) before publication.

7. Timelines

  • Initial decision (after peer review) is typically within 4-8 weeks of submission (subject to reviewer availability).
  • For major revisions, authors should aim to submit the revised manuscript within 4 weeks unless otherwise agreed.
  • The overall time from submission to publication will depend on author responsiveness, revisions required and production schedules.

8. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal a rejection decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief, explaining grounds for appeal, within 30 days of decision.
  • Complaints about the peer review process (e.g., bias, misconduct) should be sent in writing to the Editorial Office; TORGJ and the publisher will investigate in line with established publication ethics guidelines (e.g., Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE).

9. Reviewer Recognition

  • TORGJ values the invaluable contribution of reviewers and will acknowledge their service annually (name-only recognition on the website).
  • Reviewers are encouraged to register with Publons or equivalent platforms to receive review credit.

10. Transparency Statement

  • For each published article the footnote will include a “Provenance and Peer Review” statement indicating whether the article was commissioned or externally peer-reviewed.
  • For invited or non-peer-reviewed content (such as editorials, opinion pieces) this will be clearly indicated.

© 2025-2027 The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ), except certain content provided by third parties.