DOWNLOAD THE REVIEW FORM

Peer-review process

All manuscripts submitted to TERRA ORTHOPAEDICA undergo independent peer review. The purpose of peer review is to provide an objective and unbiased assessment of the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, relevance, and practical value of the submitted manuscript.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure. The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed during the review process. Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts, and their identities are not disclosed to the authors.

After initial editorial screening for compliance with the journal’s scope, submission requirements, formatting, ethical standards, and plagiarism policy, each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers may be members of the Editorial Board or external independent experts. Reviewers are appointed by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief / Executive Editor or by a designated handling editor.

Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if such conflicts may affect the objectivity of their assessment.

The standard peer-review period is 2–4 weeks from the date of reviewer assignment. If additional expert evaluation is required, or if the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer.

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s scientific level, theoretical and methodological quality, originality, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, clinical or scientific relevance, and adherence to the journal’s requirements. Based on their assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• accept for publication;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• resubmit for review;
• reject.

Authors receive reviewers’ comments and recommendations by electronic communication. If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a response to reviewers within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers if further expert evaluation is necessary.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor on the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the revised manuscript, the authors’ responses, and the journal’s editorial and ethical standards.

Members of the Editorial Board may submit manuscripts to the journal; however, such manuscripts are subject to the same peer-review procedure as all other submissions. Editorial Board members and journal staff are excluded from the review process and editorial decision-making concerning their own manuscripts.

If an author disagrees with reviewers’ comments or the editorial decision, the author may submit a reasoned response to the Editorial Office. In such cases, the manuscript may be reconsidered by the Editorial Board and/or sent to an additional independent reviewer. The Editorial Office reserves the right to reject manuscripts if authors do not adequately address reviewers’ comments or fail to comply with the journal’s requirements.