Editorial & Review Process

InterPore Journal is a peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal. All submissions are handled through this website and follow the process below.

Submission

At the time of manuscript submission, the corresponding author should also provide information on the following items: 

• Declare any conflicts of interest or relevant disclosures.
• Suggest potential reviewers.
• Indicate reviewers to avoid (due to conflicts).
• Indicate the type of peer review: 
  • Double anonymized: Reviewer names are hidden, author names are hidden
  • Single anonymized: Author names are shown, reviewer names are hidden
  • Open: Author names are shown, reviewer names are shown

Initial Check

At the time of submission, the Managing Editor ensures that the manuscript follows author guidelines, editorial policies, and disclosure requirements, and also screens the manuscript for plagiarism using Crossref Similarity Check. A note will be added to the submission with the report score. Should the value be high, or if any concerns arise from the report, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) will be informed so they can determine the next steps. The EIC then reviews the manuscript to determine whether it is suitable for the journal.

Assignment to Editor & Reviewers

• If suitable, the EIC assigns an Editor with relevant expertise.
• The Editor invites at least two reviewers (taking into account author suggestions and conflicts of interest).
• Reviewers must declare whether any conflicts exist before accepting the invitation.

The hoped-for timeline is that reviewers respond to an invitation within 1 week, and once accepted, complete their review within 4 weeks. Please note that the process may move faster or take longer, depending on availability and circumstances.

Note: Certain article types (e.g., Commentaries, Letters, Short Communications) may be reviewed at the Editor’s discretion.

Review Process

InterPore Journal uses a single-anonymized review process as its standard: author names are visible to reviewers, but reviewer names remain hidden. When no preference is indicated, this option is automatically selected by the system. However, authors may request either a double-blind review (both author and reviewer names hidden) or a fully open review process (both names revealed). Please note that in the case of a fully open review, reviewers must also agree; if any reviewer declines, their names will remain hidden.

The Editorial Team has set the following expectations for reviewers. In addition to these expectations, reviewers receive guidance on key elements to consider during their evaluation.

Reviewer expectations:

• Provide constructive, polite, and unbiased feedback.
• Highlight strengths as well as areas for improvement.
• Focus on the main issues (ideally 6–8 points).
• Offer clear suggestions, numbered for easy response.

Key aspects to evaluate:

• Originality and significance of the work.
• Clarity of concepts and arguments.
• Appropriateness of methods.
• Quality of data and analysis.
• Coverage of relevant literature.
• Strength and reliability of conclusions.

Reviewers may add confidential comments for the Editor. Suspected misconduct should be reported immediately.

Review Policy

Reviews are normally shared unedited with authors. Exceptions apply in cases where a review contains a hostile tone, inappropriate language, or identifying information in anonymized models. In such cases, Editors may contact the reviewer to adjust the wording.

Decision

Based on the reviewer reports, the Editor provides a recommendation to the EIC. The EIC makes the final decision on the manuscript, which may be one of the following outcomes:

• Reject
• Major revision
• Minor revision
• Accept

The Corresponding Author receives the decision email and all reviewer comments. 

Revision

When authors submit a revised manuscript, they must also provide a detailed response to the reviewer comments. Authors are not required to implement every requested change; however, they are expected to carefully consider each comment made by the reviewers, and when relevant, the Editor, as these suggestions are intended to improve the manuscript. If authors disagree with a particular point, they should provide a clear explanation of their reasoning in the response document. Should authors suspect bias in a reviewer’s report at any stage, they are encouraged to contact the Managing Editor or the assigned Editor.

The Editor and Managing Editor are notified automatically upon submission of the revision. If necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the same reviewers for further evaluation. Additional rounds of revision may be required until the manuscript meets the journal’s standards. Based on the reviewer feedback, the Editor then makes a recommendation, and the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) issues the final decision informed by that recommendation.

Acceptance of Manuscript

Once a manuscript has been accepted, the Managing Editor is notified. In most cases, the Managing Editor will review the files in the system and contact the Corresponding Author with any questions or requests for final materials. At this stage, the “Permission to Publish, Copyright and License Agreement” will be sent for e-signing. Authors will also be asked to provide the original files (Word or LaTeX manuscripts, original image files), pay the Article Processing Charge (APC) if applicable, and supply promotional materials for their paper, such as a graphical abstract, short text for social media, or a video abstract.

When these steps are complete, the Managing Editor will prepare the PDF proof of the manuscript. Before publication, the Corresponding Author will receive the proof for corrections and final approval. Authors may also review their manuscript after the first proof stage to confirm accuracy or request further corrections if necessary.

Following publication, the Editorial Office will promote the article in the InJournal section of the member newsletter (when applicable) and across all InterPore social media channels.

Communication

• Authors can track progress in the online system.
• Questions: contact Managing Editor at Laura.Lenz@InterPore.org
• Concerns about reports, communications, or published content: contact our Committee on Publication Ethics at CPE@InterPore.org