Peer Review Process

Peer review is the process through which academic journals evaluate and regulate the quality, validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts by inviting independent experts in the field to assess the work. The Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma (NJOT) employs a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. This approach is intended to promote impartial, unbiased evaluation based solely on scholarly merit.

The NJOT peer-review process generally involves the following stages. The sequence described below reflects typical practice and may be adapted by the Editorial Office where necessary to ensure fairness, efficiency, and editorial quality.

Overview of the Review Process

Submission of Manuscript
The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal, typically via the online submission system. In exceptional circumstances, submissions may be accepted by email at the discretion of the Editorial Office. Authors may be invited to suggest potential reviewers; however, the journal is under no obligation to use these suggestions.

Initial Editorial Assessment
The editorial staff conducts an initial screening to ensure that the submission complies with the journal’s Author Guidelines, including formatting, completeness, and required documentation. At this stage, the scientific quality of the manuscript is not assessed.

Scope and Editorial Suitability Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editor evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and aligns with its editorial focus.

Assignment to an Associate Editor
Where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor. The Associate Editor conducts a preliminary assessment of originality, relevance, and potential contribution to the field. Manuscripts that are clearly unsuitable may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

Selection and Invitation of Reviewers
Suitable reviewers with relevant expertise are identified and invited to review the manuscript. Typically, multiple reviewers are invited to ensure balanced and informed evaluation.

Reviewer Response to Invitations
Invited reviewers consider the request in light of their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. Those who decline may, if willing, suggest alternative reviewers.

Conduct of Peer Review
Reviewers assess the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s Reviewer Guidelines and submit their reports to the Editorial Office. Reviews typically include constructive comments and one of the following recommendations:

• accept without revision
• accept with minor revision
• accept with major revision
• resubmission after substantial revision
• rejection

Evaluation of Reviews
The Associate Editor considers all reviewer reports and synthesizes their recommendations. Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further input before a recommendation is made.

Editorial Decision and Communication
Based on the reviews and the Associate Editor’s recommendation, the Editor communicates a decision to the corresponding author, together with anonymised reviewer comments.

Author Revision and Further Review (where applicable)
For manuscripts requiring revision, authors are invited to respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised version. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the Associate Editor. Major revisions are typically returned to one or more original reviewers for further evaluation. This process may be repeated as necessary until a final editorial decision is reached.

Final Decision
Once a final decision is made, it is communicated to the authors. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the publication stage.

The editorial team reserves the right to adapt the review process as appropriate for the manuscript type, complexity, or ethical considerations. NJOT does not guarantee acceptance at any stage, and all decisions are guided by scholarly merit, ethical standards, and the journal’s editorial policies.

The peer-review process of the Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma is conducted in accordance with the journal’s Reviewer Guidelines, which outline the ethical responsibilities, expected standards of conduct, and principles of objective scholarly assessment required of all reviewers.

These Reviewer Guidelines are informed by and aligned with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which provide internationally recognised best practices for confidentiality, objectivity, conflict-of-interest management, and responsible use of privileged information.

Reviewers invited to assess manuscripts for NJOT are expected to familiarise themselves with both the journal’s Reviewer Guidelines and the underlying COPE principles.