Peer-review process


1. The handwritings of the articles submitted to the editor office are subject to an independent peer-review. Its task is the maximum possible unbiased evaluation of an article's content. It stipulates a comprehensive analysis of its advantages and week points to improve the quality of the future publication with any available means (clarification, author's rearrangement, additional review, professional and literature editing, etc.).

2. The peer-review is carried out by the members of the journal's editorial board and independent experts in the sphere of the research. The person in charge of appointing a reviewer is a deputy Editor-in-Chief – the Executive Editor.

3. As a rule, we apply a confidential review system (double-blind review) hiding any personal data of the author and the reviewer. The reviewers receive the coded articles, and the personality of the reviewer is not subject to disclosure to the author. The only exception is the need for particular opinions of other experts in the respective branch of science.

4. A reviewer shall analyze the handwriting, evaluate its theoretical and methodologic level, scientific essence, and practical value. The compliance of the article with the requirements to handwritings submission for publication in the Journal “TERRA ORTHOPAEDICA” outlined in the review form is subject to separate assessment. On the background thereof, the reviewer concludes the scientific level of the article and recommends it for publication, otherwise reasonably proposes to re-process or reject it.

5. After completion of the review, a reviewer shall fill in the review form to fix the results, sign and send it to the Editors office on paper and electronic bearers.

6. An author obtains the reviewer’s conclusions through electronic communication means. Upon requirement and within stated terms, the author re-processes the handwriting of the article and submits the re-processed variant to the Editors office.

7. The re-processed variant of the handwriting may be provided for the reviewer to resolve the possibility of publication.

8. Articles by the members of the Editorial Board are subject to the standard review procedure. Editorial Board members do not review their papers.

9. In case an author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, he/she is entitled to provide a grounded reply to the review to the Editor's office. In this case, the article is subject to consideration at the Editorial Board's meeting and (or) a peer-review by a different expert. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the articles in case their authors fail to consider demands and comments by reviewers. We envisage no other mailing with the authors.