Peer Review Policy

Peer review represents a pivotal phase in the system employed to evaluate the quality of a manuscript prior to its publication. In this process, independent researchers in the pertinent field of study assess submitted manuscripts for their originality, validity, and significance.

The Journal of Orthopaedics, Sport Science and Rehabilitation employs a single-blind peer review system, whereby the names of the authors are disclosed to the reviewers, but the authors are unaware of which reviewer has assessed their manuscript unless the reviewer elects to sign their report.

The principal advantage of single-blind peer review is that it is the traditional model of peer review with which many reviewers are comfortable, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.

Manuscripts submitted for review are typically assessed by two or more experts. The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's scientific soundness and coherence, ascertain whether it duplicates published work, and determine whether the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The editors will make a decision based on these reports and will consult with members of the Editorial Board as necessary in order to reach an informed decision.

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review plays an integral role in the editorial process, assisting the editor in making informed decisions. Through constructive feedback and dialogue with the author, peer review can also facilitate improvements to the paper. Peer review is an indispensable element of formal scholarly communication and constitutes the very core of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethical obligations outlined below, reviewers are expected to treat authors and their work with the same respect and consideration they would wish to receive themselves and to adhere to the standards of professional conduct expected of reviewers.

In the event that a selected referee feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, they are obliged to notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. It is imperative that reviewers refrain from disclosing the contents of their reviews or any information pertaining to the paper in question to any third party or contacting the authors directly without express permission from the editor.

Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises. However, reviewers should first discuss this with the editor to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit.

It is not permitted for a reviewer to use any unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the express written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The deployment of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the context of journal peer review

The rationale for this policy stems from the advent of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies,^* with the objective of enhancing transparency and providing guidance to authors, editors and reviewers. JSR-A will maintain close observation of developments in this field and will make any necessary adjustments or refinements to the policy. The following guidance is intended for reviewers.

In the event that a researcher is invited to review the work of another researcher, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. It is inadvisable for reviewers to upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool, as this may contravene the authors' confidentiality and proprietary rights. Furthermore, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, this may constitute a breach of data privacy rights.

This obligation of confidentiality extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. Therefore, it is imperative that reviewers refrain from uploading their peer review reports into AI tools, even if the intention is merely to enhance language and readability.

Peer review is a fundamental aspect of the scientific ecosystem. The act of reviewing a scientific manuscript carries with it a set of responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. It is inadvisable for reviewers to employ generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to assist in the scientific review of a paper. The critical thinking and original assessment required for peer review are beyond the capabilities of such technology, and there is a risk that it will generate erroneous, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The responsibility and accountability for the content of the review report rests with the reviewer.

Ethical awareness

A reviewer should be aware of any potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor. This includes any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. In the event that an observation, derivation, or argument is presented as having been previously reported, the relevant citation must be provided.

Standards of objectivity and competing interests

It is imperative that reviews be conducted objectively. Reviewers must be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is unethical. Referees are responsible for expressing their views clearly and reasonedly, with supporting arguments.

In the event that a reviewer anticipates a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers in question, they are expected to consult with the Editor prior to accepting the review assignment.

Should a reviewer propose that an author cite their own work or that of their associates, this must be for valid scientific reasons and not with the intention of artificially inflating the reviewer's citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).