Peer Review Steps

Before a paper is ever considered for publication, our editorial staff checks it for research integrity and quality requirements. When a manuscript satisfies JTR’s quality standards, it is invited to undergo peer review by an editor from the appropriate specialized department. The editor then determines whether to forward the submission for review or to propose its prompt rejection to the chief editor of the specialty after doing a preliminary content check.

In the second scenario, the chief editor of the specialty may agree with the handling editor that the manuscript should be rejected immediately for the reasons given below:

• Objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in the manuscript that prevent further consideration
• Ethical issues were identified in the manuscript that prevent further review or publication
• The manuscript does not fulfill the standards established for the journal to be considered for publication (see full rejection criteria above).

The specialty chief editor may, nevertheless, override the handling editor’s recommendation and decide that the manuscript deserves being reviewed before a final decision is made. In this case they will assign the manuscript to a new handling editor for another assessment.

The handling editor invites experts to review the manuscript; most article types require at least two reviewers to complete a review. These reviewers can either be invited from the board of review editors or appropriately recruited among experts in the field.

Handling editors: reviewer invitations

When a manuscript is sent out for peer review, it is the responsibility of the handling editor to invite and supervise the reviewers. For the majority of article types, it takes a minimum of two reviewers to finish the process. You can ask members of the review editors’ board for their input, or you can find qualified people in the field to serve as reviewers.

The responsibility of handling the manuscript’s reviewers’ suggestions falls on the handling editor. As mentioned earlier, our reviewers have clearly defined criteria for accepting and rejecting manuscripts, and it is the handling editor’s responsibility to validate these decisions.

Reviewers are only allowed to provide final rejection or acceptance recommendations; if the handling editor disagrees, they can ask for additional expert feedback or bring in other reviewers. Nine times out of ten in 2020, handling editors accepted or rejected based on reviewers’ recommendations without consulting other experts.

The JTR team is not involved in determining the acceptance or rejection rates, and they have no intention of doing so. Achieving one of the highest citation counts in the world for open access publications is a testament to the competence of our editors and the rigorousness of our peer review process.

Independent review phase

The reviewers are asked to submit the standardized independent review report via the online collaborative review forum within seven days after accepting the assignment. This is done independently by each reviewer. The handling editor is automatically notified as soon as each of the reports is submitted, along with the recommendation of that reviewer. If the reviewer recommends acceptance, they are able to immediately endorse the manuscript and finalize their review.

Once all reviewers have submitted a report, the editor is responsible for activating the next phase, the interactive review, to release the review reports to the authors. If the editor would like to recommend rejection during the independent review phase, they can do so by activating the interactive review phase with major concerns, providing the authors with the reports and a unique opportunity for rebuttal during a defined timeframe.

Interactive review phase

As soon as the editor starts the interactive review phase, the writers will get a notification and be able to see the reviewers’ remarks on the collaborative review forum. According on the editor’s request, authors have seven, ten, or fourteen days to respond and/or submit a revised paper. After several attempts at contact fail, the editorial office will send a last email giving the writers seven days to reply. The editorial staff retains the authority to remove the paper from further evaluation after this.

At any moment, the editor can go to the collaborative review forum and leave a comment. The editor keeps an eye on the forum conversations going on between writers and reviewers to make sure they stay on topic and are helpful to each other.

If a disagreement emerges at this point, the editor steps in as a mediator, helping to settle the matter by collaborating with all parties and, if necessary, bringing in more reviewers for their perspectives. If the dispute does not go away, the manuscript will either be rejected or the review will be continued, possibly with a different handling editor and set of reviewers, depending on the situation assessed by the specialty chief editor during the interactive review phase.

Reviewers have the option to suggest manuscript rejection when they are unable to resolve a disagreement to their satisfaction. A suggestion for rejection along with an explanation is thereafter communicated to the handling editor. Reviewers also have the option to remove their names from future reviews. The reviewer will be removed from the review forum in the event of a withdrawal or rejection recommendation; however, they will be able to monitor the manuscript’s progress on their My JTR page. The editor is notified of the reviewers’ suggestions and has the option to either add to the chief editor’s rejection list or ask other reviewers for their professional thoughts. Participants will have access to the reviewer’s independent review report in the review forum as long as it was filed before the recommendation of withdrawal or rejection. It has not been erased or misplaced.

At any time throughout this stage, the following causes could lead to a manuscript’s rejection:

• This manuscript contains objective mistakes that hinder its continued examination due to their presence in the techniques, applications, or interpretations.
• The identification of ethical problems in this paper has rendered it unsuitable for further evaluation or publication.
• The manuscript is not publishable because it does not meet the journal’s requirements.
• Other factors that fulfill the rejection criteria (mentioned above)
• The authors were unable to make sufficient revisions to the manuscript to address the concerns identified by the reviewers or editor during the review process.

The review is complete only once all reviewer and editor comments have been satisfactorily addressed by the author.

Author triggered arbitration

The authors have the right to contest the rejection and initiate arbitration proceedings in the event that a disagreement develops over the manuscript’s rejection.

In their response, writers should give readers all the information they need to decide for themselves whether the complaint has merit. To illustrate the point, if the response addresses the issue of lack of ethics permission, the author is expected to include a letter that has been received from the appropriate ethics committee. Factually sound and meaningful rebuttals are required. Rebuttals containing offensive or disparaging language will not be taken into consideration.

Step one is for the editorial office to mediate. Based on the stage of peer review where rejection happens and the reasons for rejection, they may address the matter with editors and reviewers in an effort to settle the dispute. For the purpose of confidential arbitration evaluation, the editorial office may also consult with outside experts. Evaluating the validity of rebuttals and/or conducting peer reviews are both components of this process.

The time it takes for an arbitration case to be completed might range from a few weeks to a few months, depending on how complicated the case is. Authors can expect to receive updates every two to four weeks, although the decision-making process can take a long time.

If an arbitration panel finds in favor of the writers, the editorial office may reevaluate the manuscript up to the point of rejection or select new editors and reviewers to begin the peer review process again.

If the arbitrator decides that any of the aforementioned rejection conditions are satisfied, the document will stay rejected. Authors are advised not to submit a revised version of a rejected article while arbitration is proceeding.

Reviewer triggered arbitration

Additionally, reviewers have the right to initiate arbitration proceedings if they determine that writers are unwilling to make necessary revisions throughout the peer review process. Reviewers have the option to suggest rejection at any point or decide not to participate in the review process altogether if they are not satisfied with the arbitration decision. In either instance, their identity will not be revealed. Since the peer review process is slowed down when a reviewer withdraws, authors are advised to address the concerns of the reviewers participating with their paper as much as possible and comply with the process. Even if the writers were recommended for rejection in the past, the article can still be accepted if the arbitration rules in their favor.

Manuscript acceptance

Reviewers are required to notify the handling editor when they complete their reports if they agree with the publishing of the manuscript as is. Among the requirements for manuscript approval are:

• Have an editor and the required minimum number of independent reviewers for the type of item
• Be valid according to the acceptance criteria up top

receive approval from the appointed reviewers who have not withdrawn their support.

The editor has a few days to review the final draft and make any required revisions before accepting or rejecting the manuscript. The handling editor is not obligated to seek the specialist chief editor’s approval before accepting a submission.

Once the manuscript has been approved by the managing editor, it moves on to the final validation process. Here, the JTR peer review team looks for any remaining technical issues, as well as quality and if the review was done properly. In the event that the manuscript does not pass the final checks, it can either be returned to review for corrections or the provisional acceptance decision can be reversed, resulting in rejection and no publishing of the document.

Before a manuscript may be finalized for publishing, the article processing price (APC) must be paid within 30 days following acceptance.

Manuscript rejection

If the article does not have the necessary number of reviewers who can approve it (often two, and they must form a majority), the managing editor is responsible for recommending its rejection to the chief editor of the specialty. While the specialty chief editor typically makes the final rejection decision, the research integrity team can also use the factors mentioned earlier to make their conclusion.

Rejected manuscripts do not incur any costs, including APC.