Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
This guide is designed to outline the MOJ's expectations and provide a framework for conducting a thorough, fair, and constructive review. Our goal is not merely to select manuscripts for publication, but to foster a collaborative environment that helps authors, even those whose work is not accepted, to improve their research and scholarly writing.
I. The Philosophy of Peer Review at MOJ
The role of a reviewer is multi-faceted. A peer reviewer serves as a gatekeeper in upholding the scientific validity and ethical standards of the journal. They are expected to provide constructive criticism to help authors strengthen their manuscript. They should also offer specialist' insight on a paper to guide the final editorial decision.
We expect the comments of our peer reviewers to be scientifically sound and methodologically critical. They should be based on the manuscript's merits, and not on personal affiliations, competitive interests, or the authors' origin. Criticism should be specific, with professional and collegial tone. Efforts should be made to avoid undue delay in providing the comments.
II. The Review Process:
A. Initial Assessment
You should begin by reading the manuscript through once to get an overall impression. Ask yourself the following questions:
- Novelty & Importance: Does this work contribute something new to the field of orthopaedics? Is the research question relevant to our readership, particularly in the context of regional (Malaysian/Southeast Asian) practice?
- Clarity of Message: Is the main takeaway of the paper clear?
- Suitability for MOJ: Is the topic and scope appropriate for our journal?
B. Detailed Evaluation
Now, analyze each section critically.
- Title and Abstract:
- Does the title accurately reflect the content?
- Is the abstract a clear and concise summary of the problem, methods, key results, and conclusion?
- Introduction:
- Does it establish the context and significance of the study?
- Is there a clear and concise research question, hypothesis, or objective?
- Is the literature review relevant and up-to-date?
- Methodology:
- Design: Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
- Ethics: Is there a statement regarding ethical approval and patient consent?
- Participants: Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly defined? Is there a calculation on the sample size, especially for prospective study.
- Intervention/Technique: Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to be reproducible?
- Outcomes: Are the primary and secondary outcome measures clearly defined and validated?
- Statistics: Are the statistical tests used appropriate?
- Results:
- Are the important results clearly presented (without the need to refer to tables or figures) in the text?
- Do the tables and figures support (not duplicate) the results provided? Are they easy to interpret?
- Do the results directly address the research question?
- Are actual data (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals) provided, not just statements of significance?
- Discussion:
- Do the authors interpret their results in the context of the existing literature?
- Do they acknowledge the limitations of their study?
- Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
- Is the clinical relevance or implication of the findings clearly stated?
- References:
- Are they current and relevant?
- Is the format consistent with the MOJ's guidelines (e.g., Vancouver style)?
C. Specific Checks
- Originality: Be alert for potential plagiarism and redundant publication. If you suspect misconduct, please notify the editor confidentially.
- Data Integrity: Scrutinize figures and tables for any signs of manipulation or inconsistency.
Language & Clarity: While MOJ provides copyediting before publication, the submitted manuscript should be intelligible. If extensive language polishing is required, please state a clear comment on this. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to improve the language before we can accept the paper for publication.
III. Structuring Your Report to the Editor and Authors
Your review may consist of two parts:
- Confidential Comments to the Editor:
This is where you provide your frank, overall assessment and any sensitive concerns.
- Clearly state your recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).
- Justify your decision with key points.
- Flag any ethical concerns, potential plagiarism, or conflicts of interest.
- Comment on the manuscript's priority and novelty.
- Comments to the Authors:
This is the constructive feedback that will be sent to the authors.
- Start with a summary: Briefly summarize the paper in your own words and highlight its strengths. This shows you have engaged with the work.
- Use numbered points: Organize your comments by manuscript section (e.g., “Abstract / Introduction / Material ….”, or “Page / Paragraph / Line…….").
- Be specific:
- Instead of: "The methods are weak."
- Write: "The sample size calculation is not provided. Please justify the number of participants included."
- Justify your critiques: Explain why a change is needed.
- Instead of: "The discussion is too long."
- Write: "The discussion would be more focused if the authors condensed the first two paragraphs, which review well-established knowledge (a reference)."
IV. Making a Recommendation
Choose the recommendation that best fits your assessment:
- Accept: The manuscript is excellent and requires no further changes (rare).
- Minor Revision: The manuscript is sound but requires minor clarifications, corrections, or additions.
- Major Revision: The study has merit but has significant flaws in methodology, analysis, or interpretation that require substantial revision. A second round of review will be necessary.
- Reject: The manuscript has fundamental flaws, lacks novelty, is outside the journal's scope, or is scientifically unsound. Please provide a clear, professional explanation for a rejection to help the authors in their future work.
V. Final
Note The generosity of our peer reviewers in sharing of their time and expertise is what make the MOJ a credible and respected publication. You are not just reviewing a paper; you are actively shaping the discourse in orthopaedics and supporting your colleagues in their academic journey.
(8th Nov 2025, Instructions for authors)
