Guide for Reviewers
Standards, ethics, and the review structure we expect at OSCRSJ.
Thank You for Reviewing
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, and your expertise directly shapes the quality of OSCRSJ. As a reviewer, you serve two functions: advising the editorial team on whether a manuscript meets our standards for publication, and providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Even manuscripts that require revision or rejection deserve thoughtful, respectful feedback.
OSCRSJ publishes work from across the global orthopedic surgery community, from first-time student authors to established researchers. Your review shapes the quality of the literature and the development of every author you evaluate.
No AI-Generated Reviews
The use of large language models, generative AI tools, or any automated review-writing assistance is strictly prohibited at OSCRSJ. This includes ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and any other AI system, whether used to generate reviewer comments, summarize the manuscript, draft the recommendation, or paraphrase your own notes.
Reasons: (1) confidentiality — uploading any portion of an unpublished manuscript to a third-party AI service is a breach of the confidentiality agreement you accept when invited to review; (2) accountability — peer review at OSCRSJ is a human judgment by a qualified domain expert, and AI-generated text bypasses the qualifications that earned you the invitation; (3) integrity — automated reviews cannot reliably identify subtle clinical errors, ethical concerns, or methodological flaws that an experienced orthopedic surgeon recognizes immediately.
Reviews suspected of AI generation will be discarded, the reviewer will be removed from the OSCRSJ reviewer pool, and the relevant institutional and professional bodies may be notified. If you cannot complete the review yourself, decline the invitation and suggest an alternative reviewer.
Confidentiality and Ethics
All manuscripts are confidential. Do not share, discuss, or distribute any manuscript under review — including with AI tools (see prohibition above).
Do not use information from an unpublished manuscript in your own work.
OSCRSJ uses double-blind review. Do not attempt to identify authors. If you recognize the work, disclose this to the editor.
Decline to review if you have a conflict of interest: personal relationship with likely authors, competing research, financial interest, or institutional affiliation with likely authors.
If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations, notify the editor immediately. Do not contact the authors directly.
Review Timeline
48 hours
Respond to Invitation
Accept or decline the review request
21 days
Complete Your Review
From the date you accept the invitation
Up to 7 days
Extension Available
Contact the editorial office before your deadline
If you are unable to review, please suggest 1-2 alternative reviewers with relevant expertise.
How to Conduct Your Review
First Read
Read the entire manuscript without taking notes. Get a general impression of the clinical significance, novelty, and presentation quality. Ask yourself: does this case teach something useful? Would I want to know about this case if I encountered a similar patient?
Detailed Assessment
Re-read the manuscript section by section, evaluating clinical significance, novelty, methodology, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and clarity. Track line numbers as you go — every comment you make in your review should be tied to a specific line in the manuscript so the author knows exactly what you are referring to.
Write Your Review
Open with a general comment that captures your overall impression of the manuscript, then walk the paper section by section, citing line numbers for each issue. The structure below shows exactly what we expect in the Feedback and review field on the structured review form linked from your invitation email.
Review Structure
Every review at OSCRSJ follows the same two-part structure. Open with a general comment, then address every issue you raise section by section, citing the line number in the main manuscript. This format keeps the author oriented, makes the editor’s decision letter easier to assemble, and ensures nothing gets lost in translation between reviewer notes and author revisions.
Overall Comment
Open the review with one or two short paragraphs summarizing your overall impression of the manuscript before going into specifics. Briefly describe what the paper is about in your own words (this confirms to the editor that you read it carefully), state whether the case or series adds something useful to the orthopedic literature, and flag the headline strengths and weaknesses. Do not cite line numbers in the overall comment — that is what the section-by-section review is for.
Section-by-Section Review (with line numbers)
After the overall comment, walk the manuscript section by section. Address every issue you raise under the section it appears in, and cite the specific line number in the main manuscript so the author can find it without guessing. Use the section headings the manuscript itself uses; if a section has no issues, write “No issues.” rather than skipping it.
- Title and Abstract
- Introduction
- Case Presentation / Methods
- Results / Outcomes
- Discussion
- References
- Figures and Tables
Example
Introduction
Line 42: The cited incidence rate (1 in 100,000) is from a 2008 epidemiology paper; the 2021 update from Smith et al. revises this to 1 in 60,000. Please update.
Line 58: This sentence implies causation where the underlying study only demonstrated correlation. Suggest softening to “associated with.”
Your recommendation and the conflict-of-interest declaration are collected as separate fields on the structured review form — you do not need to repeat them in the Feedback and review text.
Reviewer Recognition
OSCRSJ values your contribution to the peer review process. Reviewers who complete reviews on time and provide high-quality feedback will receive:
Annual Certificate
Reviewer certificates for use in academic portfolios, CVs, and promotion applications.
Website Recognition
Name listed on the annual reviewer acknowledgment page on the OSCRSJ website.
Editorial Opportunities
Priority consideration for Associate Editor and Editorial Board positions.
CME Credit
Continuing medical education credit for peer review activity (planned for Year 2).
Interested in reviewing for OSCRSJ?
We are actively recruiting reviewers across all orthopedic subspecialties.