- Turnaround Times
- Providing Clear Reasons for Rejection
- Maintaining the Reviewer Database
- Enforcing JBJS Policies
- Communicating with Other Editors
1. Turnaround Times
Maintaining prompt turnaround times is critical to providing authors with a positive and professional experience and ensuring efficient operation of the Journal. Editors are expected to manage manuscripts proactively to avoid unnecessary delays at each stage of the editorial process.
Editors should assign sub-editors or reviewers within 3 days of receiving an assignment, and enter a decision within 4 days once peer review has been completed. Including the time for peer review (14 days for new submissions, 10 days for revised submissions) and stats/methods review (7 days), this ensures that one round of the peer review process in total takes around 30 days to complete.
Adhering to these benchmarks helps maintain consistency across the Journal and allows authors to receive timely decisions. If delays are anticipated, Editors should communicate with the Editorial Office so that appropriate support or adjustments can be made.
2. Providing Clear Reasons for Rejection
The template letters provided for reject and transfer decisions broadly state that the reasons for rejection will be evident in the reviewer comments, but this is not always the case. Sometimes reviews will have a generally positive tone, but the editor ultimately decides not to pursue a manuscript on the basis of one or two key flaws. If the author feels that the decision does not match the reviewer comments, they are more likely to submit an appeal. As such, Editors are encouraged to edit the template letters to ensure that the reason for the decision is clear.
This is especially important for Reject without Review decisions, as the template letter includes only a general blanket statement. Editors should therefore provide a minimum of two to three sentences explaining the reasons for rejection without review; however, a more detailed editorial assessment is encouraged whenever possible.
3. Maintaining the Reviewer Database
Previously Removed Reviewers
The Editorial Office performs routine maintenance of the reviewer database twice per year. Reviewers who meet criteria for removal (less than 50% review completion rate, frequently late reviews, or frequently poorly rated reviews) are removed without notice and a flag (red hazard symbol) is placed on their profiles. You may come across these individuals in reviewer searches every so often, for example, if you’re searching all users (“Entire Database”) instead of users with a current reviewer role (“Reviewer”).
We strongly discourage inviting these individuals to review. If the individual is someone you personally know and believe would complete a strong review in a timely manner, please contact the Editorial Office so we may remove the flag from their profile and instead place them on probation.
To ensure that these individuals are not continually added back to the database, the Editorial Office completes a monthly search for users with a Reviewer role and the red hazard flag and re-removes their role as needed.
You may also occasionally see an individual with the X flag. This means that the individual personally requested to be removed from our reviewer list and should therefore never be invited to review a manuscript.
Reviewers on Probation
Reviewers who have recent performance issues but don’t quite meet the criteria for removal will be placed on probation. A flag (blue P inside a circle) will be added to their profile, as well as a Detailed People Note explaining the reason for their probation status. They are notified of their performance issues and provided with tips for improving.
These reviewers should not be avoided, as we want to ensure they have adequate opportunities to improve their reviewer statistics. Their performance will be re-reviewed during the next maintenance period. If they meet our reviewer requirements for that period, they will be taken off the probation list. If their performance has not improved, they will be removed from the database without notice.
Alerting the Editorial Office to Unreliable Reviewers
During the course of your reviewer searches, you may come across reviewers whose statistics appear to be very poor, or who frequently decline the invitations you send. You may bring these reviewers to the attention of the Editorial Office so we may remove them from the database if warranted. This ensures that these individuals do not stay in the database and continue to cause delays until the next maintenance period.
You may notify the Editorial Office by email, or by placing a flag (orange hazard symbol) on the individual’s profile. To add a flag, simply click on the small flag icon to the right of their name, check the box next to the orange hazard flag (Please Remove Reviewer Role, located at the bottom of the list), and click submit. The Editorial Office reviews any reviewers with this flag on a monthly basis and will remove their reviewer role if warranted.
Adding New Reviewers
If you know someone who would make a great reviewer for JBJS, you may request that the Editorial Office add them to the database. As these are personal recommendations, a CV is not required. The individual will be added to the system, granted a reviewer role, and flagged with the New Reviewer flag (green N inside a circle). Individuals with the New Reviewer flag are reviewed during the maintenance period to ensure they meet our requirements and are typically given a longer grace period to improve their performance if needed.
The Editorial Office strongly recommends against adding new reviewers without first notifying the Editorial Office, as this makes it harder to track performance and maintain a high-quality database.
To submit a request for a new reviewer, click the “Request Unregistered Reviewer” link on the Invite Reviewers screen. This will link the request to that specific manuscript, and our staff will also invite them to review that manuscript once they have been added to the system. To request a new reviewer generally, please email editorial@jbjs.org.
4. Enforcing JBJS Policies
Editors play a critical role in upholding JBJS editorial policies and standards. This includes our Artificial Intelligence Policy, Ethics Policies, and adherence to standard reporting guidelines as outlined in our Instructions for Authors.
Editors should carefully review submissions for compliance with these policies at both the initial assessment and decision stages. If a manuscript appears not to meet required standards, Editors should clearly communicate the issue to the authors and indicate whether the concern can be addressed through revision or necessitates rejection.
When ethical concerns are identified—such as suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, or undisclosed conflicts of interest—Editors should not attempt to resolve these matters independently. Instead, they should notify the Editorial Office promptly so the issue can be handled in accordance with JBJS procedures and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.
5. Communicating with Other Editors
Effective communication among Editors is essential for consistency in editorial decision-making and carrying out the JBJS mission. In addition to regular meetings of the Executive Editors, Senior Editors, and broader Editorial Board coordinated by the Editorial Office, Editors are encouraged to schedule regular check-ins with one another. This is particularly valuable for ensuring alignment between Senior Editors and the Associate Editors in their sections.
Editors are also encouraged to communicate across sections when doing so would strengthen the editorial process. Manuscripts may raise methodological, content-specific, or policy-related questions that would benefit from input outside an Editor’s primary section, and such consultation is welcomed. Cross-section collaboration helps prevent siloed decision-making, promotes consistent standards across the Journal, and supports the thoughtful handling of complex or interdisciplinary submissions. These discussions may take place via email or through Editorial Manager (see the Discussion Feature), with the Editorial Office available to assist as needed.