Peer review process
Where a submitted review article is judged to fit within the aims and scope of the journal, the Managing Editor will assign it to an Associate Editor according to the specialty area. The relevant Associate Editor will typically invite two reviewers to read each article, although further reviewers may be invited as appropriate.
Reviewers are asked to judge each review article on several criteria, the key questions being:
• Does the review article provide a clear and comprehensive summary of the current state of understanding for this topic?
• Does the article adequately discuss relevant current debates in the field and gaps in the literature (if any)?
• Has all of the key literature on this topic been cited and discussed?
• Is the language acceptable?
Reviewers must also provide detailed feedback on each article before making one of four recommendations:
2. Minor revision (the authors are invited to submit a revised manuscript for review, addressing any specific concerns raised by the reviewers)
3. Major revision (as above, but the changes requested are generally more extensive)
Reviewers should bear in mind that their opinion may differ from those of the other reviewer(s) and/or the Associate Editor, and the Associate Editor/Editor-in-Chief may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. (Where a paper is eventually accepted for publication, each reviewer will receive an email containing blinded feedback from all other reviewers.) When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we hope that they will also commit to reviewing subsequent revisions, other than in extenuating circumstances.
Once two or more completed reviews have been received, the Associate Editor is invited to make a recommendation and to provide feedback, taking into account the advice of the reviewers. The article then passes to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision.
Once a final decision is recorded, the lead author will receive an email confirming the decision and detailing any feedback from the reviewers, Associate Editor and Editor-in-Chief. Where revisions are requested, the author(s) should provide a detailed response detailing line numbers where changes have been made, or explaining why requested changes have not been made. This response should be uploaded in the ‘Author response’ field and also as ‘Supplemental file for review’ within our manuscript submission site when submitting a revised version. The revised version of the paper must also use the Track Changes feature so that it is clear where updates have been made.
International Journal of Current Science and Technology and The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery are committed to the publishing standards outlined by ICMJE (http://www.icmje.org/), recognising that academic publishing is dependent on the ethical approach of all involved, including authors, peer reviewers, journal editors and the publisher. We strive to maintain the editorial independence and transparency of the journal, its authors and editors, and support ethical publication practices.
For further guidance, please see the British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery Publication Ethics guidelines, and also the ICMJE Recommendations.
The journal also follows the best practice guidelines provided by COPE, particularly with regard to plagiarism and fraud. Each paper is screened using duplication-checking software at the point of submission, and in cases of plagiarism and copyright infringement we follow the codes of conduct provided by COPE: http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts.
Conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest statement is required for every article which is accepted for publication. This statement will have no bearing on the decision to publish, or not to publish. Completion of the ICMJE conflict of interest form will be requested post-acceptance, and the form must be completed by all co-authors. ICMJE forms are retained by the journal, and can be made available upon request.
A summary of the information collected in the ICMJE form will be published at the end of each International Journal of Current Science and Technology article.
All reviewers and Associate Editors are also required to declare any conflict of interest.
Informed consent and human/animal studies
Where case details, personal information or images of patients and other individuals are included in an article, appropriate consent and permission must be obtained in order to comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the privacy and/or security of personal information. Written consent must be supplied to the International Journal of Current Science and Technology editorial office and this will be held on record.
Formal consents are not required for completely anonymised images from which the individual cannot be identified, such as radiographs, provided that these do not carry any identifying information.
Authors are required to follow national and international procedures governing the ethics of experimentation on humans and animals. Although International Journal of Current Science and Technology publishes review articles rather than original research, should any original research be reported in an article this must be conducted in an ethical manner, in full compliance with all relevant codes of experimentation and legislation. Any article reporting on clinical trials on humans or animals must include a written statement detailing the formal approval of local human subject or animal care committees, and stating that clinical trials have been registered in line with legislation.
For any questions about editorial policies or the peer review process that are not addressed here, please contact the Managing Editor, Prof. KAIKAI XU