Editorial & Review Process

InterPore Journal is a peer reviewed and open access scientific journal, for which all articles are to be submitted via this website. The Editorial and Peer Review Process has the following main stages:


When a paper is first submitted, the corresponding author will have the opportunity to indicate the following items:

  • Any conflicts of interest or relevant information which should be considered.
  • To suggest potential reviewers
  • To indicate any reviewers that should be avoided due to a conflict of interest.
  • To indicate how identities of the authors and the reviewers should be handled during the review process.

    • Double anonymized: The identities of both the reviewers and the authors are not given.
    • Single anonymized: The identities of the authors are known, the reviewers identities however are not given.
    • Open: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are known.

Initial Check

Following submission of the paper by the corresponding author, the Managing Editor will perform an initial check of the submission, paying attention to adherence to author guidelines and editorial policies, conflicts of interest, any relevant disclosures and to ensure that there are no issues with any of the submitted documents.

Once the initial check has been completed, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) will be notified, and they will then perform an initial review of the manuscript regarding suitability for this journal.

Assignment to Editor for Peer Review

If no issues are found, manuscripts will be assigned to an Editor with relevant expertise who will then manage the entire review process. In most cases, the Editor will invite a minimum of two reviewers  to perform a review of the manuscript. When assigning reviewers to a paper, the assigned Editor will make sure to select reviewers that should not have a conflict of interest in relation to the authors. The Editor will take into account the names of suggested reviewers as well as any names the author(s) have indicated should be avoided.

Reviewers should declare any conflicts of possible or actual conflicts of interest in regard to papers they have been invited to review, and they should not review any papers for which there is a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest include situations in which the reviewer has a personal, professional, financial, or institutional connection with one or more of the authors. A conflict of interest may also exist when the manuscript is closely related to the reviewers own current work in progress. If a reviewer feels that there may be a conflict of interest, then the Editor should be informed so that the situation can be examined, and if necessary, the reviewer removed from that specific paper.

Invited reviewers are requested to provide a response to an invitation within one week, and if they accept the invitation, then we request that their review be completed within four weeks. Reviewers will be chosen based on expertise, publication history and past reviews performed.

Please note that for the following article types, peer review may be performed at the Editors discretion: Commentaries on Previously Published Articles, Invited Commentaries, Letters to the Editor, Short Communications, and Invited Commentaries.

Review Process

The invited reviewers will receive per email an invitation to review a paper, and included with this invitation will be the title of the paper, response date, link to paper in system, review due date, and the abstract text. Reviewers are also requested to be considerate and respond in a timely manner to invitations (within 1 week). We also allow invited reviewers to suggest other potential reviewers if they themselves currently cannot perform the review.

Reviewers are requested to keep in mind the following items when performing a review:

  • Please aim to provide a constructive, polite, and unbiased assessment of the manuscript at hand. Your comments should be made with the intent on helping the authors improve their work.

  • Provide clear feedback and concrete suggestions on how to improve the paper.

  • Please also comment on the strengths of the paper – what was done particularly well or what is of value and how can the authors make that even better.

  • Stick to the major issues, do not nitpick. Try to limit to 6 to 8 major issues or concerns that you may have with the manuscript. Ignore the little stuff.

  • Suggest solutions to the problems raised and organize your review in order of importance.

  • Number your points to make it easier also for the authors to respond.

We request that reviewers in particular, consider and comment upon the following items:

  • The originality and importance of the work – is the contribution which this work provides clear or are any key elements missing?

  • Have the key concepts been clearly developed?

  • Appropriateness of the research techniques utilized

  • Quality of the data and the analysis

  • Has any relevant literature been overlooked?

  • Reliability and significance of the conclusions. Is the authors argument sound and clearly stated?

  • Have any important questions been left open?

  • Are there any areas of the paper which you may not be qualified to review?

When submitting their review, reviewers have the option of making confidential comments for the Editor in addition to their comments for the author(s), and if preferred, their comments can be uploaded as a separate document.

If any any point a reviewer suspects research or publication misconduct in a paper they are reviewing, they are instructed to contact the assigned Editor, and to include a brief explanation of what is suspected. The Editor, along with the Editor-in-Chief and our Committee on Publication Ethics will then investigate further to determine if there is indeed an issue.


Once all reviews have been received, the Editor will provide a recommendation to the EIC, who will then issue the final decision to the authors. The following decisions are possible:

  • Reject
  • Major revision
  • Minor revision
  • Accept

An email will be sent to the Corresponding Author regarding the decision, and this email will also include all reviewer comments.

Policy regarding Editing or Withholding of Reviews

In general, we have a policy of not editing or withholding any of the submitted reviews prior to sending them to the authors. However, exceptions may be made if the tone of a review is hostile or contains too personal a tone, non-compliance with the reviewer guidelines, or contains innapropriate or offensive language. In such cases, the reviewer will be directly contacted beforehand and the desired changes or adjustments will first be discussed and agreed upon. If the reviewer does not agree to the changes, the review will be sent as is and the Editor may choose to also comment upon the one review.

In cases where the identity of the reviewer is meant to remain anonymous, however the submitted review contains reference to the reviewer name or institition (e.g. comments inserted into a pdf or a word document that include the reviewers name in the settings area), the Managing Editor will adjust the settings of the document so that these personal details are not shown.


Rarely will a paper be accepted following the first round of reviews – more likely is that either minor or major revision will be required. Following revision, it will be necessary for the authors to submit a revision along with a response to the reviewers’ comments via our system. Within the original submission, there will be a section where the corresponding author can upload all revision documents. The Managing Editor and assigned Editor will then be automatically notified that a revision has been uploaded.

The revised manuscript may or may not be required to undergo a further round of reviews. Should a further round of review be deemed necessary, then the same reviewers as previously will be invited to perform a review of the revised manuscript.

The Editor will make a new recommendation based on the feedback received from the reviewers to the EIC, and the EIC will issue the final decision.

During the entire process, all involved strive to respond as quickly as possible as possible to all emails and stages. Authors may also log in to their author center at any time to see what stage their submission is currently in. Should any questions arise at any time, one can always contact the Managing Editor at Laura.Lenz@InterPore.org.

If at any time any concerns arise regarding communications received, including review reports, or the content that is published (or under review), then we ask that you contact our Committee on Publication Ethics at CPE@InterPore.org.