Peer-Review Guidelines

COPE Alignment Statement

The reviewer policies of the Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma (NJOT) are informed by and aligned with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (Version 2, September 2017). These guidelines have been adapted to reflect the journal’s scope, context, and editorial governance requirements.

Reference:
COPE Council. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2, September 2017.
Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf

A. Reviewer Code of Conduct

Reviewers play a central role in safeguarding the scientific integrity, credibility, and quality of the Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma (NJOT). By accepting an invitation to review, reviewers agree to adhere to the following standards of professional conduct.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, disclose, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with any third party except where explicitly authorised by the editor. Information obtained through the peer-review process must not be used for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.

Objectivity and Professionalism

Reviews must be conducted objectively, fairly, and respectfully. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate and unacceptable. Reviewers should provide clear, reasoned, and evidence-based comments that focus on the scientific merit, methodological rigour, clarity, and relevance of the work.

Constructive Engagement

The purpose of peer review is to support editorial decision-making and to assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers should frame comments constructively, clearly distinguishing major concerns from minor issues, and provide actionable guidance where possible.

Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers are expected to remain alert to potential ethical concerns, including but not limited to unethical study design, inadequate reporting of ethical approval or informed consent, inappropriate use of human or animal subjects, plagiarism, data fabrication, or redundant publication. Any such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor.

Timeliness

Reviewers who accept an invitation to review are expected to complete their review within the timeframe specified by the editor. If circumstances arise that may result in delay, the editor must be notified promptly.

Failure to adhere to this Code of Conduct may result in removal from the journal’s reviewer pool or other appropriate editorial action.

B. Conflicts of Interest and Reviewer Eligibility

To preserve the independence, fairness, and credibility of the peer-review process, reviewers must decline to review any manuscript for which they have a real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Current or former students, supervisees, or mentees
  • Family members or close personal relationships
  • Authors based at the reviewer’s current institution
  • Authors whose research the reviewer funds, or who fund the reviewer’s research
  • Collaborators within the past two years, including co-authorship or joint research projects
  • Any financial, professional, or personal relationship that could reasonably be perceived to influence objectivity

Reviewers are responsible for promptly declaring any potential conflicts of interest to the editor upon receipt of a review invitation. Reviewers must not proceed with a review where a conflict exists unless the editor has been informed and has explicitly approved continuation.

C. How to Conduct a High-Quality Peer Review

NJOT recognises that reviewers have varying levels of experience with peer review. The following guidance is provided to promote consistency, rigour, and usefulness in reviewer reports.

General Principles

  • Read the manuscript in full before drafting comments.
  • Focus first on scientific validity, originality, and methodological rigour before language or formatting issues.
  • Clearly distinguish between major issues (e.g. study design, analysis, ethics) and minor issues (e.g. clarity, presentation).

Assessment of Content

  • Evaluate whether the research question is relevant, original, and important to the field of orthopaedics and trauma.
  • Assess whether the study design, methods, and analyses are appropriate and adequately described.
  • Consider whether the conclusions are supported by the data presented.

Constructive Feedback

  • Support critiques with clear reasoning or evidence.
  • Avoid rewriting the manuscript; instead, guide authors on how the work can be improved.
  • Phrase all comments in a professional and respectful manner, with the aim of improving the manuscript.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

  • Use confidential comments to the editor to raise concerns regarding ethics, misconduct, conflicts of interest, or suitability for publication that should not be shared directly with authors.

Review Quality

  • Reviews that are superficial, dismissive, or unsupported by clear reasoning are not helpful to authors or editors.
  • Reviewer reports should provide sufficient detail to justify recommendations and to assist editorial decision-making.

Guiding Considerations for Reviewers

To support reviewers in developing a balanced, thoughtful, and comprehensive assessment of submitted manuscripts, the Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma (NJOT) offers the following considerations as general guidance. These points are intended to inform the reviewer’s judgement, not to serve as a mandatory checklist or reporting template.

Reviewers are not expected to address every item explicitly. Rather, these considerations highlight common areas that may merit attention, depending on the nature, design, and scope of the manuscript under review. Reviewers should focus on issues that are most relevant to the quality, validity, and contribution of the work.

Topic and Content

  • Is the topic relevant to the scope of the journal?
  • Is the content important and meaningful to the field of orthopaedics and trauma?
  • Is the work original? If not, please provide appropriate references.

Title

  • Does the title accurately and adequately reflect the contents of the article?

Abstract

  • To what extent does the abstract reflect the key aspects of the study, including background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?

Introduction / Background

  • Is the rationale for the study clearly and adequately described?

Objectives

  • Are the study objectives clearly stated and well defined?

Methodology

  • To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for addressing the stated objectives?
  • Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
  • Is the sampling technique appropriate and clearly described?
  • How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
  • How well are strategies to minimise bias or error documented?

Ethical Considerations

  • Are ethical issues adequately described and addressed?
  • For studies involving human participants, has ethical approval been obtained and clearly reported?

Analysis and Results

  • Are the analytical methods adequately described?
  • Are the methods of data analysis appropriate for the study design and objectives?
  • Do the results adequately address the research question(s)?
  • Are the results credible and internally consistent?
  • Is statistical significance appropriately documented (e.g. confidence intervals, p-values)?
  • Are the findings presented logically, with appropriate displays (tables and figures) and explanations?

Discussion

  • How clearly are the key findings stated?
  • To what extent are similarities or differences with previous studies discussed, and are plausible reasons provided?
  • Are the findings interpreted in the context of existing evidence?
  • Are the implications of the findings clearly explained?
  • Is the interpretation warranted by, and sufficiently derived from, the data and results?

Conclusion(s)

  • Do the results adequately justify the stated conclusion(s)?

References

  • Are the references appropriate and relevant?
  • Are the references up to date?
  • Are there important references that appear to be missing?
  • Do the references follow the recommended journal style?
  • Are there any obvious errors in the reference list?

Writing Quality

  • Is the manuscript clearly written?
  • Is the paper logically structured, with appropriate content in each section and a coherent flow of arguments?
  • Are there problems with grammar, spelling, punctuation, or language that require attention?

Reviewers who wish to further develop their peer-review skills may find the following resource helpful:

Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. Available online at:
https://www.phd2published.com/2012/05/09/how-to-write-a-peer-review-for-an-academic-journal-six-steps-from-start-to-finish-by-tanya-golash-boza/

Final Note

These reviewer policies are intended to promote fairness, integrity, and excellence in peer review and reflect NJOT’s commitment to ethical, transparent, and high-quality scholarly publishing.