Peer Review Policy
The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ) uses independent peer review to support scientific rigour, methodological quality, ethical integrity, constructive scholarly dialogue, and fair editorial decision-making across surgical, perioperative, anaesthesia, nursing, allied-health, global-health, educational, and related research.
Author and reviewer identities are withheld from one another during standard peer review.
Full research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
Statistical, methodological, or other specialist review may be requested when appropriate.
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not replace the journal’s independent editorial decision.
Double-Blind Peer Review
For manuscripts undergoing standard external peer review, TORGJ seeks to withhold author identities from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors. Authors should therefore prepare anonymised review files in accordance with the journal’s submission requirements.
Full research manuscripts ordinarily undergo external peer review. Editorials, invited commentaries, opinions, selected educational content, and other non-research material may undergo a modified editorial or peer-review process. TORGJ should indicate the article’s provenance and peer-review status in the published record where applicable.
Purpose of Peer Review
Peer review supports informed editorial decision-making by providing independent expert assessment of a manuscript’s scientific, methodological, ethical, and scholarly quality. It also provides authors with constructive feedback that may strengthen the clarity and reliability of their work.
Assess Scientific Quality
Reviewers consider whether the research question, evidence, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions are scientifically appropriate and sufficiently supported by the manuscript.
Evaluate Methodological Rigour
Peer review helps identify strengths and limitations in study design, sampling, data collection, statistical analysis, qualitative methods, reporting, and interpretation.
Support Ethical Integrity
Reviewers may identify concerns relating to ethics approval, informed consent, participant protection, authorship, conflicts of interest, reporting, or other aspects of research integrity.
Improve Clarity & Reporting
Constructive peer review can help authors improve organisation, transparency, reporting completeness, interpretation, discussion, and presentation of the manuscript.
Assess Relevance & Contribution
Reviewers consider whether the work makes a meaningful contribution to the relevant field and whether its implications are appropriately represented.
Inform Editorial Decisions
Reviewer recommendations provide independent expert input to the editor, helping the journal determine whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, reconsidered, or rejected.
Peer Review Is More Than a Recommendation
A useful reviewer report explains the reasoning behind its assessment and helps both the editor and the author understand the manuscript’s strengths, limitations, and areas requiring attention.
Principles of Effective Peer Review
TORGJ seeks peer review that is rigorous enough to protect scholarly quality while remaining fair, professional, constructive, proportionate, and useful.
Reviewers and editors assess manuscripts using the information reasonably available during evaluation. Peer review cannot guarantee that every error, limitation, undisclosed issue, or future scientific disagreement will be identified before publication. Authors remain responsible for the integrity and accuracy of their work.
Review Model & Reviewer Selection
TORGJ selects reviewers according to the subject matter, methodology, complexity, and ethical considerations of the manuscript. Reviewer expertise, independence, confidentiality, and potential conflicts of interest are considered when assigning manuscripts for external review.
Double-Blind Peer Review
For manuscripts undergoing standard external review, TORGJ seeks to conceal author identities from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors during the review process. Authors should therefore submit an appropriately anonymised review manuscript.
At Least Two Independent Reviewers
Full original research manuscripts are ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject, methodological, clinical, educational, scientific, or professional expertise.
Additional Expertise Where Required
An editor may obtain additional statistical, methodological, qualitative, ethical, technical, or specialist clinical review where the manuscript requires expertise beyond that of the primary reviewers.
Reviewer Recommendations Are Advisory
Reviewers provide independent expert advice. The editor is not required to follow a majority recommendation mechanically and remains responsible for the final editorial decision.
How Reviewers Are Selected
Reviewer selection should support a fair, informed, and independent assessment of the manuscript.
Review Pathway May Vary by Article Type
Not all scholarly content requires the same review process. The level and form of assessment should be appropriate to the article’s purpose, claims, provenance, and risk.
Normally reviewed by at least two independent experts, with additional specialist review where required.
Assessed according to the methodological and scholarly requirements of the review type.
May undergo specialist peer review with attention to clinical value, consent, reporting, and interpretation.
Invited or non-research content may undergo editorial review, external review, or both depending on the article.
The journal may apply a modified scholarly or professional review process appropriate to the content.
Where relevant, the article should indicate whether it was invited, externally peer reviewed, or handled through another recognised editorial pathway.
Manuscripts From TORGJ Editors or Editorial Board Members
Editors, Editorial Board members, and other individuals associated with TORGJ may submit manuscripts to the journal, but they must not participate in the selection of reviewers, peer review, editorial assessment, or final decision for their own work. Such manuscripts should be assigned to an independent editor and assessed under the same scholarly standards applied to other submissions.
Where the journal permits authors to suggest or identify potential reviewers, editors remain free to use or disregard those suggestions. Reviewer identities, expertise, independence, institutional affiliations, and potential conflicts may be checked before an invitation is issued.
Peer Review Criteria
Reviewers should assess manuscripts fairly and proportionately according to the article type, research question, methodology, evidence presented, ethical requirements, reporting standards, and relevance to the scope and readership of TORGJ.
Relevance & Contribution
Is the manuscript relevant to the journal’s scope, and does it offer a useful contribution to surgical, perioperative, anaesthesia, nursing, allied-health, educational, global-health, policy, technological, or related knowledge and practice?
Research Question & Objectives
Are the research question, objectives, hypotheses, or scholarly aims clearly defined, appropriate, and adequately addressed by the study or article?
Methodological Rigour
Is the study design appropriate? Reviewers should consider sampling, recruitment, variables, interventions, comparators, data collection, measurement, bias, confounding, and other relevant methodological issues.
Analysis & Statistics
Are the analytical methods appropriate and sufficiently described? Where applicable, reviewers should consider statistical tests, assumptions, effect estimates, uncertainty, missing data, modelling, and interpretation.
Ethics & Participant Protection
Where applicable, does the manuscript appropriately report ethics review, informed consent, confidentiality, participant protection, trial registration, permissions, and other relevant ethical safeguards?
Results & Evidence
Are the results presented clearly, consistently, and without inappropriate duplication? Do the data, tables, figures, quotations, or other evidence adequately support the findings reported?
Interpretation & Conclusions
Are conclusions supported by the evidence? Reviewers should identify overstatement, unsupported causal claims, inappropriate generalisation, or interpretations that extend beyond the study’s design and findings.
Reporting Quality
Is the manuscript sufficiently transparent and complete for readers to understand what was done, why it was done, what was found, and what limitations should be considered?
Literature & Referencing
Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant literature? References should support the claims made, avoid unnecessary citation, and represent the scholarly context fairly.
Tables, Figures & Supplementary Material
Are tables and figures necessary, accurate, understandable, appropriately labelled, and consistent with the manuscript? Reviewers may also consider supplementary material relevant to evaluating the work.
Transparency & Reproducibility
Where relevant, are methods, materials, analytical decisions, protocols, registrations, data statements, and other information reported sufficiently to support transparency and appropriate verification or replication?
Limitations & Implications
Are important limitations acknowledged and discussed? Are implications for practice, research, education, policy, or future investigation proportionate to the evidence presented?
Core Questions for Reviewers
The precise questions will vary by article type, but a reviewer should ordinarily be able to address the following before making a recommendation.
Reporting Guidelines
Reviewers should consider relevant reporting standards where appropriate to the study design. The EQUATOR Network provides an internationally recognised library of health research reporting guidelines.
Suspected Ethical or Research-Integrity Concerns
If a reviewer identifies possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship concerns, serious participant-protection issues, or other suspected misconduct, the concern should be reported confidentially to the handling editor. Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors, their institutions, participants, or other third parties.
Reviewer Responsibilities & Ethical Conduct
Peer reviewers act as trusted independent advisers within the editorial process. Reviewers are expected to protect manuscript confidentiality, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, provide objective and constructive assessments, and conduct reviews in accordance with recognised principles of publication ethics.
Protect the Manuscript
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer materials, editorial correspondence, unpublished findings, and other information obtained through peer review must be treated as confidential.
Disclose Conflicts
Reviewers should disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their impartial assessment of the manuscript.
Assess the Work Fairly
Reviews should focus on the scholarly content, methodology, evidence, reporting, interpretation, ethics, and relevance of the work rather than personal characteristics or unrelated considerations.
Explain Concerns Clearly
Criticism should be specific, reasoned, respectful, and sufficiently clear to help editors make decisions and authors understand what requires attention.
Accept Only When Able to Review
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise and a reasonable ability to complete the assessment within the requested timeframe.
Do Not Exploit Privileged Access
Information, ideas, methods, data, or findings obtained through confidential peer review must not be used for personal, professional, competitive, academic, or commercial advantage.
Manuscripts Under Review Are Confidential
A reviewer receives access to a manuscript solely for the purpose of carrying out the review requested by TORGJ. That access does not authorise wider circulation, discussion, retention, reuse, or disclosure.
Generative AI & Peer-Review Confidentiality
Reviewers remain personally accountable for the content, accuracy, integrity, and recommendations of their reviews. Confidential manuscripts or substantive unpublished manuscript content must not be uploaded to publicly accessible or external generative-AI systems where doing so could disclose, retain, reuse, or otherwise compromise confidential material.
Reviewers should not submit a manuscript, figures, tables, datasets, supplementary files, identifiable extracts, or confidential editorial correspondence to an external AI system unless TORGJ has explicitly authorised that system and its use.
AI-generated output must not replace the reviewer’s own expert evaluation, reasoning, verification, or responsibility for the recommendation provided to the journal.
Unpublished ideas, data, methods, findings, images, and other manuscript content remain confidential regardless of whether an AI tool could technically process them.
Where a reviewer is uncertain whether a particular digital or AI-assisted tool is permitted, the reviewer should contact the Editorial Office before using the tool on manuscript content.
Review Assignments Must Not Be Delegated Without Permission
A reviewer invited by TORGJ should not transfer, delegate, or share the review assignment with a colleague, trainee, student, or other person without prior approval from the handling editor. Where supervised co-review is approved, all contributors to the review should be identified to the journal so that confidentiality, conflicts of interest, accountability, and appropriate recognition can be managed transparently.
If You Suspect Research or Publication Misconduct
Reviewers who identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, authorship concerns, undisclosed competing interests, serious ethical deficiencies, or other potential misconduct should report the concern confidentially to the handling editor. Reviewers should provide the basis for the concern where possible but should not independently investigate the authors, contact their institutions, or approach third parties. The journal will determine the appropriate next steps under its publication-ethics procedures.
Respectful and Professional Review
Reviewer comments must not contain insulting, discriminatory, hostile, defamatory, humiliating, or personally disparaging language. Rigorous criticism of methods, analysis, interpretation, or reporting is appropriate; personal criticism of authors is not. TORGJ may edit, withhold, or disregard reviewer comments that breach professional or ethical standards and may discontinue the use of reviewers whose conduct is inconsistent with journal expectations.
Editorial Decisions & Revision Pathway
Peer-review reports inform the editorial decision, but they do not function as votes. The handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer assessments, author responses, journal policies, ethical requirements, and any specialist advice before determining the appropriate next step.
Accept
The manuscript is considered suitable for publication in its current scholarly form, subject only to any routine editorial, formatting, production, or final technical requirements.
Minor Revision
The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited amendments that do not ordinarily alter the fundamental design, analysis, or principal conclusions of the work.
Major Revision
Substantial concerns must be addressed before publication can be considered. These may involve methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting, ethical clarification, restructuring, or other significant scholarly issues.
Reject & Invite Resubmission
Where substantial redevelopment is needed but the underlying work may remain potentially suitable for TORGJ, an editor may invite a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission. Any resubmission remains subject to fresh editorial assessment and does not guarantee acceptance.
Reject
The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in TORGJ because of significant scientific, methodological, ethical, reporting, originality, scope, or other substantive concerns.
Additional Assessment
Before reaching a final decision, the editor may seek another reviewer, specialist statistical or methodological assessment, ethical clarification, additional documentation, or further author response where necessary.
What Happens After a Revision Decision?
A request for revision means that the journal is prepared to reconsider the manuscript after the identified concerns have been addressed. It is not equivalent to acceptance.
Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts
Not every revision requires another full external review. The need for re-review depends on the nature of the requested changes, the seriousness of the original concerns, and whether specialist reassessment would materially assist the editorial decision.
A revised manuscript may still be rejected if substantial concerns remain unresolved, new concerns arise, required evidence or documentation is not provided, or the revised work no longer meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, editorial, or scope requirements. Likewise, authors remain free to withdraw a manuscript rather than undertake a requested revision.
Peer Review Timelines & Expedited Review
TORGJ seeks to provide rigorous peer review within reasonable timeframes. Review duration can vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, specialist review requirements, revision needs, and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.
Editorial Screening
The manuscript is assessed for scope, completeness, ethical requirements, basic quality, and suitability for external review.
Reviewer Invitation
Appropriate independent reviewers are identified and invited according to expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.
Reviewer Assessment
Reviewers are ordinarily asked to return their assessment within approximately 2–3 weeks.
Editorial Decision
Once sufficient reviews and any required specialist input are available, the editor evaluates the complete record and communicates the decision.
Standard Peer Review
The overall time from submission to the first substantive decision after external peer review may be longer than the individual reviewer turnaround period because the journal must identify reviewers, obtain sufficient independent reports, assess the reports, and sometimes obtain additional specialist advice.
Optional Fast-Track Review
Where available and appropriate, authors may request TORGJ’s optional fast-track pathway. This pathway is intended to prioritise editorial handling and reviewer coordination, with a target editorial decision within 7 working days, subject to manuscript suitability and reviewer availability.
The optional fast-track service relates only to expedited processing. It does not reduce scientific scrutiny, modify authorship or ethical requirements, guarantee reviewer agreement, guarantee acceptance, or influence the editor’s final decision. Where an adequate independent review cannot responsibly be completed within the target period, scholarly integrity takes priority over speed.
Review timelines may be affected by reviewer availability, highly specialised subject matter, requests for additional analyses or documentation, statistical or methodological consultation, ethical concerns, public holidays, author revision time, or other circumstances. TORGJ seeks to avoid unnecessary delay while maintaining appropriate review quality.
Appeals, Complaints & Review Disputes
Authors may raise a reasoned appeal where they believe that a material scholarly, procedural, ethical, or conflict-of-interest issue affected an editorial decision. Complaints concerning reviewer conduct or the review process may also be raised through the Editorial Office.
Challenge a Decision on Substantive Grounds
An appeal should identify a specific material issue that may have affected the decision, such as a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, overlooked evidence, factual error, methodological misinterpretation, procedural irregularity, or relevant conflict of interest.
Raise a Concern About Reviewer Conduct
Authors may report concerns such as inappropriate personal criticism, discriminatory language, undisclosed conflicts, coercive citation requests, breaches of confidentiality, or other conduct inconsistent with TORGJ reviewer standards.
Raise a Concern About Editorial Handling
Complaints may also concern substantial delays, failure to follow stated review procedures, confidentiality concerns, conflicts of interest, inappropriate communication, or other material problems with the review process.
What a Peer-Review Appeal Should Include
A useful appeal is focused, evidence-based, and explains why reconsideration is justified. It should not simply repeat the manuscript or state that the authors disagree with rejection.
How Review Disputes May Be Resolved
Depending on the issue raised, TORGJ may take one or more proportionate steps before confirming or revising the original editorial decision.
Appeals Should Be Handled Without Relevant Conflicts
Where reasonably possible, an appeal concerning the judgement or conduct of a particular editor should not be determined solely by that same individual. The matter may be referred to another appropriately qualified editor or senior editorial representative who was not materially involved in the disputed decision. Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest should recuse themselves from the appeal process.
Under TORGJ’s double-blind review model, reviewer identities ordinarily remain confidential during and after an appeal. Authors should not attempt to identify, contact, investigate, pressure, or retaliate against reviewers. Where concerns about reviewer identity, conflicts, or conduct arise, they should be referred to the Editorial Office for appropriate assessment.
Submit a Peer-Review Appeal or Complaint
Include the manuscript ID, manuscript title, decision date, and a concise explanation of the scholarly, ethical, procedural, or conduct issue you wish the journal to review.
Reviewer Recognition, Confidentiality & Transparency
TORGJ values the scholarly contribution of peer reviewers while maintaining the confidentiality required by its double-blind review model. Reviewer recognition should acknowledge service without compromising manuscript, author, reviewer, or editorial confidentiality.
Reviewer Service May Be Acknowledged
TORGJ may provide reviewers with confirmation, acknowledgement, certificates, or other appropriate evidence of completed peer-review service.
Recognition Does Not Reveal the Manuscript
Reviewer recognition should not ordinarily disclose the title, authors, content, editorial decision, confidential comments, or other identifying details of the manuscript reviewed.
Reviewer Records May Be Maintained Internally
TORGJ may retain appropriate internal records of review invitations, acceptance or decline, review completion, timeliness, expertise, conflicts, and reviewer conduct for legitimate editorial and quality-assurance purposes.
Reviewer Reports Are Part of a Confidential Editorial Record
Peer-review reports and associated correspondence are handled as confidential editorial materials. Access should be limited to those with a legitimate role in manuscript evaluation, journal governance, ethical investigation, or related editorial functions.
Provenance & Peer-Review Transparency
TORGJ may include a provenance or peer-review statement within the published article to help readers understand how the manuscript entered the journal and what type of editorial assessment it underwent.
Certificates & Evidence of Peer-Review Contribution
Where TORGJ issues a reviewer certificate or confirmation of contribution, it may identify the reviewer, the journal, and the period or number of reviews completed, but should avoid revealing confidential manuscript information. Reviewer recognition remains subject to satisfactory completion of the review and adherence to journal confidentiality and ethical standards.
A certificate, acknowledgement, professional portfolio entry, or other evidence of reviewer service does not authorise a reviewer to disclose unpublished manuscript content, author identity learned through the process, confidential editorial communications, or the substance of an identifiable review. Confidentiality continues after the review has been completed.
Standards, Related Policies & Contact
TORGJ’s peer-review framework forms part of the journal’s wider commitment to research integrity, editorial independence, ethical publishing, transparent scholarly communication, and continuous improvement of editorial practice.
Independence
Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, evidence, ethics, relevance, and journal policy rather than inappropriate external influence.
Fairness
Manuscripts should receive proportionate and impartial assessment regardless of author identity, institution, geography, professional discipline, or career stage.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts, reviewer reports, unpublished findings, and confidential editorial communications should be appropriately protected throughout the review process.
Accountability
Editors, reviewers, and authors remain responsible for their respective roles within the peer-review and publication process.
Standards Informing TORGJ Editorial Practice
TORGJ considers established international guidance on publication ethics, peer review, editorial practice, research reporting, and responsible scholarly publishing. Such guidance informs journal policy alongside applicable legal, ethical, disciplinary, and institutional requirements.
This Policy May Be Updated
TORGJ may review and amend this policy periodically in response to developments in publication ethics, peer-review practice, technology, artificial intelligence, research governance, indexing requirements, legal obligations, or journal operations.
Cases May Require Editorial Judgement
No policy can anticipate every circumstance. Where an issue is not expressly addressed, TORGJ may apply proportionate editorial judgement, relevant journal policies, recognised publication-ethics guidance, and appropriate specialist advice.
Rigorous Review. Fair Decisions. Responsible Publishing.
The purpose of peer review at The Operating Room Global Journal is not simply to approve or reject manuscripts. It is to support the integrity of the scholarly record by ensuring that published work receives appropriate independent scrutiny, that authors are treated fairly, that participants and communities are respected, and that editorial decisions remain evidence-based, transparent, ethical, and independent.
Questions About Peer Review?
Authors, reviewers, and editors may contact the TORGJ Editorial Office regarding peer-review procedures, reviewer responsibilities, editorial decisions, appeals, confidentiality, or other matters relating to this policy.
Separate Major and Minor Comments
Reviewer reports should distinguish issues that materially affect the scientific or scholarly validity of the manuscript from improvements that primarily concern clarity, presentation, or minor correction.
Issues That May Affect Validity or Interpretation
Issues That Improve Clarity or Presentation