Editorial & Review Process

Overview

InterPore Journal is committed to a fair, constructive, and transparent editorial and peer review process. All manuscripts are submitted online through the InterPore Journal submission system. Upon submission, the manuscript receives a unique identification number, which should be used in all communication with the Editorial Office.

Authors may select among single-anonymized, double-anonymized, or open peer review. If no preference is stated at submission, the default single-anonymized review model will be used. The Managing Editor will follow up with the submitting author if clarification is needed.

Initial Submission

Manuscripts must be submitted directly by the corresponding author or another listed co-author authorized by the corresponding author, using the submitting author’s own account in the journal’s online submission system. Third-party agencies or intermediaries may not submit manuscripts, operate submission accounts, or manage editorial correspondence on behalf of authors. Professional assistance with manuscript preparation must be disclosed in accordance with the journal’s Third-Party Assistance and Submission Responsibility policy.

The submitting author is responsible for providing complete and accurate author information in the submission metadata and completing the required submission declarations. with the agreement of all authors. The corresponding author must be clearly identified and remains responsible for coordinating communication with the journal and the co-authors throughout the editorial and review process.

Authors may also suggest potential reviewers and identify reviewers they would prefer to exclude, providing reasons where appropriate.

Editorial Office Checks

Completeness & Compliance

After submission, each manuscript is checked by the Managing Editor to ensure that:

  • all required files and declarations are provided,
  • authors have agreed to the journal’s publication ethics and open-access policies,
  • permissions have been obtained for any third-party material used.

Submission and Author Verification

The Managing Editor checks that the manuscript has been submitted directly by the corresponding author or another listed co-author authorized by the corresponding author, using the submitting author’s own account. The Managing Editor also checks that the corresponding author is clearly identified and that information for all authors in the submission metadata is complete and consistent with the manuscript, including affiliations where applicable. These checks support verification of authorship and the identification of potential conflicts of interest when assigning editors and reviewers.

Additional information may be requested to verify the submitting author’s identity, affiliation or role. Submissions with incomplete or inconsistent author information, or indications of third-party submission management, may be placed on hold pending clarification. If the concerns cannot be resolved, the submission may be declined.

Further details are provided in the journal’s Third-Party Assistance and Submission Responsibility policy.

Plagiarism Screening

All submissions are screened using Crossref Similarity Check to identify potential overlap with previously published work.

Editorial Scope & Quality Assessment

The manuscript is then forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) for an initial evaluation of:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope,
  • basic scientific quality,
  • clarity and suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet minimum quality standards.

Assignment to Handling Editor

If the manuscript proceeds, the EIC assigns it to an Editor whose expertise aligns with the submission’s topic. The Editor oversees the full peer review process.

  • Conflicts of interest declared by the authors or identified by the Editors are taken into consideration when selecting reviewers.
  • Reviewers recommended by the authors may be invited, while reviewers requested to be excluded will be avoided when appropriate.

For further information on the duties and responsibilities of Editors, please refer to the Editors' Duties page.

Peer Review

InterPore Journal operates a single-anonymous (single-blind) peer-review process by default. Authors may request a double-anonymous (double-blind) or open peer-review process by indicating this in their cover letter at the time of submission. Open peer review is implemented only where all reviewers explicitly agree to the disclosure of their identities; if this agreement is not obtained, the review is conducted as single-anonymous.

Review Models

  • Single-anonymized review: Reviewers remain anonymous; authors’ identities are visible to reviewers.
  • Double-anonymized review: Identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.
  • Open review: Identities of authors and reviewers are visible to each other.*

*For open peer review, reviewers must consent to having their identities revealed. If any reviewer does not consent, their identity will remain confidential and only the consenting reviewers will be disclosed.

Reviewer Selection and Evaluation

Each manuscript that proceeds to peer review must receive a minimum of two completed and independent external reviewer reports. Reviewer suggestions and exclusion requests provided by the authors are taken into account, and all invited reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest upon receiving the review invitation. Additional reviewers may be invited where necessary to obtain specific expertise or where the submitted reviewer reports differ substantially and further independent assessment is required.

Please refer to the Reviewers' Duties page for additional information on the role and responsibilities of peer reviewers.

Review Criteria

Reviewers typically assess:

  • Originality and significance of the work
    (novel contribution and relevance to the field)
  • Clarity of concepts, arguments, and overall presentation
  • Appropriateness and rigor of the methods, including
    reproducibility and soundness of the research design
  • Quality and completeness of the data and analysis
  • Coverage and accuracy of citations and prior literature,
    ensuring proper acknowledgment of previous work
  • Strength, reliability, and justification of the conclusions
  • Ethical compliance, including adherence to research and publication standards

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

Review Timeline

Reviewers are asked to respond to an invitation within one week and, once the invitation is accepted, to submit their review within four weeks. Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and other circumstances.

Please refer to our page on Peer Review Process and Policy for further information. 

Editorial Decision

Once all reviews are received, the assigned Editor evaluates the reports and provides a recommendation to the EIC. The following recommendations are possible:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Reject with option to resubmit after significant revision

The EIC reviews the recommendation and the reviewer comments and issues the final decision, along with all reviewer and editor comments, to the corresponding author.

Revised manuscripts undergo additional evaluation and, when necessary, further rounds of peer review.

Further information on Publication Decisions is available here.

Appeal Process

Authors who believe that a rejection decision was made in error or without full consideration of the manuscript’s merits may submit a formal appeal. Appeals must be submitted by the corresponding author to the Managing Editor (Laura Lenz, Laura.Lenz@InterPore.org) within 30 days of receiving the decision and should include:

  • a clear explanation of the grounds for the appeal,
  • a point-by-point response addressing the reviewer and editor comments, and
  • any additional evidence or clarification that may assist the Editors in reassessing the manuscript.

Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), who may consult another Editor or an independent expert if needed. The outcome of the appeal may be:

  • uphold the original decision,
  • invite a revised manuscript, or
  • initiate a new round of peer review.

Decisions made following an appeal are final. Appeals that are argumentative, disrespectful, or lacking substantive justification will not be considered.

Review Policy

Reviews are typically shared with authors in full and without editing. However, exceptions apply when a review contains:

  • a hostile or unconstructive tone,
  • inappropriate or unprofessional language, or
  • identifying information in anonymized review models.

In such cases, Editors may contact the reviewer to request revisions to the wording before the comments are shared.

Special Article Types

For the following categories, the Editor-in-Chief or handling Editors may exercise discretion in determining the extent of peer review:

  • Commentaries on previously published articles
  • Invited Commentaries
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Short Communications
  • Editorials

Responsibilities of Authors During the Review Process

By submitting to InterPore Journal, authors confirm that:

  • the work is original and not under consideration elsewhere,
  • all authors have approved the submission and author order,
  • all relevant data, methods, and references are provided so the work can be reproduced or built upon,
  • permissions for reused material have been obtained,
  • conflicts of interest are disclosed,
  • the scientific record will be corrected if errors are later discovered.

Authors may suggest reviewers and provide names of reviewers to avoid during submission. Further information on the duties and responsibilities of the authors can be found here. 

Commitment to Ethical Publishing

InterPore Journal follows established international standards for publication ethics. We expect all participants—authors, reviewers, and editors—to uphold these principles throughout the review process. Details may be found in the Publication Ethics Statement. Further information can also be found in the Duties and Responsibilities of the Publisher.

Revision

When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must provide a detailed response to reviewer comments. Authors are not required to implement every suggested change; however, they must carefully consider each comment. If authors disagree with a suggestion, they should explain their reasoning clearly in the response document.

If authors suspect bias in a reviewer’s report at any stage, they are encouraged to contact the Managing Editor or the handling Editor.

Upon submission of the revision, the Editor and Managing Editor are notified automatically. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed solely by the Editor, depending on the nature of the revisions. Additional rounds of revision may be required. The Editor then makes a recommendation, and the EIC issues the final decision.

Acceptance of Manuscript

Once a manuscript is accepted, the Managing Editor will review the submission files 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 issued for e-signing,
  • authors may be asked to provide original files (Word/LaTeX, high-resolution images),
  • payment of the Article Processing Charge (APC), if applicable, will be requested,
  • authors may be invited to supply promotional materials (e.g., graphical abstract, short description for social media, or video abstract).

After these steps, the Managing Editor prepares the PDF proof. The Corresponding Author will review the proof for corrections and final approval before publication. Additional corrections may be requested if necessary.

Following publication, the Editorial Office highlights the article in the InJournal section of the InterPore member newsletter (when applicable) and promotes it across 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