Journal of Tissue Repair and Regeneration · JTRR
For editors
What handling a manuscript for this journal involves. An editorial appointment is a working responsibility for the papers assigned to you, exercised to published criteria and recorded so that it can be accounted for.
Handling a manuscript
The sequence below is what an assigned editor is responsible for, from first sight to decision.
- Assess scope first
- Decide whether the work contributes to tissue repair or regeneration, against the aims and scope. Scope is settled separately from, and ahead of, the assessment of quality. Fundamental, methodological, observational, replication, synthesis, translational and clinical work all qualify on a substantive connection; no single kind of contribution is required.
- Confirm the manuscript is reviewable
- All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Check that the declarations, ethics statements, trial registration where applicable and data-availability statement are present before reviewers are invited.
- Select reviewers on expertise
- Invite reviewers whose published work covers the methods and the subject, and who have no competing interest in the manuscript. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- Weigh the reports rather than counting them
- Reviewer reports are advice. Where they disagree, read the arguments and the evidence behind them, and seek a further opinion where that is what settles it. A recommendation that rests on assertion carries less weight than one that cites the manuscript.
- Decide, and say why
- Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Give authors the reasoning and, where revision is invited, say specifically what the revision needs to address.
- Check the revision against what was asked
- Read the point-by-point response alongside the marked manuscript, and confirm that each substantive point has been addressed or answered.
Independence, interests and recusal
- Independence from payment
- Editorial decisions remain independent of fees, membership and editorial or reviewing roles. Peer review and the decision happen before any article processing charge arises, and billing is handled by the editorial office rather than by editors.
- Your own submissions
- Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions; those manuscripts are handled independently by another editor, and the handling editor's identity is not disclosed to the author-editor.
- Other competing interests
- Stand aside from any manuscript where a financial interest, a recent collaboration, a shared institution or a personal relationship could reasonably be seen to affect your judgment. Declare the interest to the editorial office rather than managing it yourself.
- Submissions from board members
- A manuscript from a member of this board is handled like any other by an editor without a competing interest, and receives no different standard of review.
Confidentiality and file handling
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Treat it and everything in it as privileged: it stays inside the review, reaches a third party only where you have arranged that with the editorial office, and informs no one's own work before publication.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers. Check the reviewer copy and its file properties before it is sent.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same restriction governs editorial handling: manuscripts, figures, supplementary files, reviewer reports and unpublished correspondence stay out of externally hosted AI systems that the journal has not approved, whether or not those systems are publicly available.
When something is wrong
Concerns raised by a reviewer, by a reader or by your own reading are escalated to the editorial office rather than resolved in correspondence with the author.
- Research-integrity concerns
- Suspected fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, undisclosed duplicate publication or authorship irregularity is referred to the editorial office with the evidence. Investigation is handled centrally, and may involve the authors' institution.
- Ethics and reporting problems
- Missing ethics approval, absent consent for an identifiable participant, an unregistered interventional trial or a data-availability statement that does not match the manuscript are settled before a decision, not after.
- The published record
- Where a published article needs a correction, a retraction or an expression of concern, the notice is citable, linked and explains what changed. The procedure is in the editorial policies.
- Appeals and complaints
- An appeal against your decision is considered by an editor who was not responsible for it. Where a complaint concerns you, it is handled by someone else.
Working with the journal
Decline or hand back an assignment you cannot give proper attention to, or that sits outside your expertise; returning it promptly serves the authors better than holding it. Tell the editorial office when you are unavailable for a period.
The reviewer guidelines set out what is asked of the reviewers you invite, and the instructions for authors set out what authors were asked to supply.
Questions about a specific manuscript, an interest you are unsure about, or anything on this page go to [email protected].