Please confirm topic selection

Are you sure you want to trigger topic in your Anconeus AI algorithm?

Please confirm action

You are done for today with this topic.

Would you like to start learning session with this topic items scheduled for future?

  • Summary
    • Peer review is an essential component of the scientific publishing process. It involves subjecting research papers to scrutiny by experts in the relevant field to ensure the quality, validity, and reliability of the research findings. Here is a general outline of the peer review process for OrthoBullets
  • Steps Overview
    • Submission
      • The author(s) submit their topic outline with content. The topic content should adhere to the specific submission guidelines provided by the venue.
    • Initial Screening
      • The editor-in-chief or the assigned editor evaluates the submitted topic content to ensure it meets the basic criteria of the publication, such as scope, originality, relevance, and adherence to formatting guidelines. Submissions that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage.
    • Assignment of Reviewers
      • Once a submission passes the initial screening, the editor assigns it to appropriate reviewers with expertise in the subject matter. Reviewers are physicians with significant clinical and research experience in orthopedics who are not directly affiliated with the authors or their institutions.  The number of reviewers can vary depending on complexity of the topic content but is no fewer than 2.
    • Reviewer Evaluation
      • The reviewers carefully examine the submission and assess its quality, scientific rigor, methodology, analysis, and interpretation of current literature. They also check for any ethical concerns, plagiarism, or conflicts of interest. 
    • Reviewer Recommendations
      • Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide recommendations to the editor. These recommendations may include acceptance, acceptance with minor/major revisions, rejection, or resubmission after substantial revisions. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive criticism, suggestions for improvement, and detailed explanations to support their recommendations.
    • Author Notification
      • The editor communicates the reviewers' recommendations to the corresponding author. If revisions are requested, the editor may provide specific guidelines and a deadline for submitting the revised submission. 
    • Revision and Resubmission
      • If revisions are requested, the authors make the necessary changes to their submission and prepare a detailed response to the reviewers' comments. They highlight the changes made in the revised version and address each comment or concern raised by the reviewers.
    • Second Round of Review (if necessary)
      • In some cases, the revised submission undergoes another round of review to ensure that the requested revisions have been adequately addressed. The same reviewers or new reviewers may be involved in this second round.
    • Final Decision
      • The editor evaluates the revised submission, the response to reviewers' comments, and, if applicable, the second round of reviews. Based on this evaluation, the editor makes a final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or the need for further revisions.
    • Publication
      • If the submission is accepted, OrthoBullets proceeds with the publication process to the website, this may include copyediting, proofreading, and formatting to align with the website requirements. 
1 of 0
Private Note

Attach Treatment Poll
Treatment poll is required to gain more useful feedback from members.
Please enter Question Text
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options