About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Welcome authors, readers, and librarians to Reconstructive Review, a peer-reviewed, open-access orthopaedic journal devoted to publishing papers in the areas of total joint arthroplasty. The types of articles include:
- Original articles
- Basic science
- Case reports
- Healthcare Policy/Economics
- Letters to the editor
Typically submitting authors' areas of expertise include the following:
- Basic Science Related to Total Joint Surgery
- Biomaterials & Bioengineering
- Oncology Related Arthroplasty
- Reconstructive Spinal Surgery
- Reconstructive Trauma Surgery
- Total Hip Arthroplasty
- Total Joint Replacement
- Total Knee Arthroplasty
Peer Review Process
The process of peer review assures the quality of the content in the articles, with the goal being new knowledge and skills that are of practical benefit to the readers of Reconstructive Review. All submissions are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor. At this point articles may be rejected without peer review if it is felt that they are not of high enough quality or not relevant to Reconstructive Review. Once submissions pass initial review they are sent out for peer review.
To provide open-access, peer reviewed articles Reconstructive Review relies on individuals who are willing to take on the responsibility, and privilege, to review articles written by their peers. Please take a moment to look at the general guidelines we provide to reviewers that outline their purpose, good practices, and responsibilities.
Double-blind Review Process and Timeframe
Reconstructive Review operates a double-blind peer-review system; that is, reviewers and authors are not informed of each other’s identities during the review process. If the reviewer, Managing Editor, and/or Editor-in-Chief feel more revisions are deemed necessary a submission may undergo several reviews.
- Reviewers must take care not to identify themselves, their patients, or their institutions within the body of their comments.
- Reviews are read by the assigned Managing Editor, who makes the preliminary decision to accept or decline, or to ask the author to revise the article. The Managing Editor may also request that the reviewer comment on an extensively revised article that he or she had reviewed previously in an earlier version.
- Reviews are to be returned in a timely manner, within 2 weeks of invitation, as determined by the Editorial Board of Directors. Because the Managing Editor’s decision must wait until all reviews are complete, a delay by a single reviewer slows the editorial process. Reviewers agree to review an article only if they have the proper expertise and are confident that they can meet the deadline.
Based on the feedback from these reviewers and the judgment of the editorial team, a decision is given on the article. Possible decisions are to Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, and Decline Submission.
Once an article has been published in Reconstructive Review any ongoing, or post-publication review and/or commentaries are handled by submitting Letters to the Editor.
If you believe your article has been incorrectly rejected by the editorial team, authors may send an appeal to the editorial office. To submit an appeal please send an email to the editorial office giving as much detail as possible about why you believe that your article has been incorrectly rejected. Please do not re-submit your article.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Authors should observe high standards with respect to publication ethics as set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, including duplicate publication of the authors’ own work without proper citation, and misappropriation of the work are all unacceptable practices. Any cases of ethical misconduct are treated very seriously and will be dealt with in accordance with the COPE guidelines. Reconstructive Review is currently registered with CrossRef and will be using their CrossCheck services to screen for plagiarism.
All authors listed on the article should have contributed significantly to the experimental design, its implementation, or analysis and interpretation of the data. All authors should have been involved in the writing of the article at draft and any revision stages and should have read and approved the final version. Anyone who made major contributions to the writing of the article should be listed as an author (e.g. “ghost writing” is prohibited by Reconstructive Review). Any other individuals who made less substantive contributions to the experiment or the writing of the article should be listed in the acknowledgement section. Any change in authorship (including author order) after the initial article submission must be approved in writing by all authors.
Authorship and “umbrella” groups
Many large collaborative studies are organized under a group name which represents all the participants. All articles must have at least one named individual as author. Authors who wish to acknowledge the umbrella group from which the data originate should first list the author(s) of the article and follow this with 'on behalf of the GROUP NAME'. If necessary the names of the participants may be listed in the Acknowledgements section.
By submitting your article to Reconstructive Review it is understood that this it is an original article and is unpublished work and is not under consideration elsewhere. Plagiarism, including duplicate publication of the author’s own work, in whole or in part without proper citation is not tolerated by Reconstructive Review. Articles submitted to Reconstructive Review will be checked for originality using CrossCheck.
Human and Animal Rights
When reporting on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with Helsinki Declaration (1964, amended most recently in 2008) of the World Medical Association. When reporting animal experiments authors should indicate whether the institution’s, national research council’s, or any other law on the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Articles should include a statement that the patient’s written consent was obtained and any information, including illustrations, should be as anonymized as far as possible. Authors should indicate that the design of the work has been approved by local ethical committees or that it conforms to standards currently applied in the country of origin. The name of the authorizing body should be stated in the paper.
Patients' identities must be removed in all figures (i.e., x-rays, MRIs, charts, photographs, etc.). Written informed consent is required from any potentially identifiable patient or legal representative, and should be presented in either the Methods section or the Acknowledgements.
The mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations, and the inclusion of advertisements in Reconstructive Review does not imply endorsement by the editors, the editorial board, Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation (JISRF), or the organization to which the authors are affiliated. The editors and publishers have taken all reasonable precautions to verify drug names and doses, the results of experimental work and clinical findings published in Reconstructive Review. The ultimate responsibility for the use and dosage of drugs mentioned in Reconstructive Review and in the interpretation of published material lies with the medical practitioner, and the editors and publishers cannot accept liability for damages arising from any errors or omissions in Reconstructive Review. Please inform the editors of any errors.
The opinions expressed in Reconstructive Review are those of the authors and contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, the editorial board, JISRF, or the organization to which the authors are affiliated.
As part of the online submission process, corresponding authors are required to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any conflicts of interest to declare, and to provide details of these. If the Corresponding author is unable to confirm this information on behalf of all co-authors, the authors in question will then be required to submit a completed form to the Editorial Office. It is the Corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors adhere to this policy.
Reconstructive Review accepts advertising for the journal, its website, and the quarterly email publication alerts. All electronic versions of ads will be linked to the appropriate web location and all banner advertising will rotate randomly. Acceptable ads are relevant to the orthopaedic industry, specifically reconstructive arthroplasty. The appearance of advertising does not indicate or imply endorsement of the advertised company or product, nor is advertising ever allowed to influence editorial content. For more information on advertising in Reconstructive Review, or to request a media kit, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
1. Reconstructive Review has the right to refuse any advertisement that, in its sole discretion, is incompatible with its mission or inconsistent with the values of members, the publication/web site or the organization as a whole, and to stop accepting any advertisement previously accepted. Ads are subject to review by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor.
2. Advertisements new to Reconstructive Review may require pre-approval before they can appear.
3. Advertisers may be required to submit supporting documentation to substantiate claims. For products not regulated by the FDA or other government agency, technical and/or scientific documentation may be required.
4. Ads for products not approved by the FDA that make any kind of health claims must carry the following disclaimer: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”
5. While Reconstructive Review welcomes and encourages information-rich advertising, advertisements, advertising icons and advertiser logos must be clearly distinguishable from editorial content and may require special labeling to distinguish them as such.
6. In Reconstructive Review the intentional placement of advertising adjacent to articles discussing the company or product that is the subject of the ad is prohibited.
7. The full rules for any market research or promotion associated with an advertisement must be displayed in the ad or available via a prominent link.
8. The following online advertising formats are prohibited:
▪ Pop-ups and floating ads.
▪ Advertisements that collect personally identifiable information from visitors without their knowledge or permission.
▪ Ads that extend across or down the page without the visitor having clicked or rolled-over the ad.
▪ Ads that send visitors to another site without the visitor having clicked the ad.
Reconstructive Review's published advertising policies are not exhaustive and are subject to change at any time without notice.
All content published in Reconstructive Review is made freely available online to all under an Open Access model. Currently there are no charges associated with submitting an article to Reconstructive Review for peer-review and publication. There are no subscription fees and all content is available as full text in either PDF and/or HTML.
Reconstructive Review employs a rolling schedule to accelerate the release of articles that are peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. The Journal is published as a Volume (e.g. Volume 9, 2019). Articles that are peer-reviewed and accepted for publication are added to the current year's volume.
This procedure applies to complaints about content of Reconstructive Review as well as the policies, procedures, or actions of Reconstructive Review’s editorial staff. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.
Our definition of a complaint is as follows:
- The complainant defines his or her expression of unhappiness as a complaint.
- We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published but thinks that there has been a failure of process - for example, a long delay or a rude response - or a severe misjudgment.
- The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of Reconstructive Review's content or process.
Reconstructive Review is aware of the complaints stated below:
- Authorship complaints
- Plagiarism complaints
- Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission
- Research results misappropriation
- Allegations of research errors and fraud
- Research standards violations
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers
Policy for Handling Complaints
If the Journal receives a complaint that any contribution to the Journal infringes intellectual property rights or contains material inaccuracies, libelous materials or otherwise unlawful materials, the Journal will investigate the complaint. Investigation may include a request that the parties involved substantiate their claims. The Journal will make a good faith determination whether to remove the allegedly wrongful material. A decision not to remove material should represent the Journal's belief that the complaint is without sufficient foundation, or if well‐founded, that a legal defense or exemption may apply, such as truthfulness of a statement in the case of libel. Journal should document its investigation and decision. We strive to ensure that Reconstructive Review is of the highest quality and is free from errors. However, we accept that occasionally mistakes might happen.
Editorial Complaints Policy
The Managing Editor and staff of Reconstructive Review will make every endeavor to put matters right as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply where necessary. As far as possible, we will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.
Our general approach to complaints is that they are a rare but inevitable part of a process that involves putting together complex material at great speed. We accept that we make mistakes and try to treat all complaints with urgency, however small. We believe that timely solutions can prevent problems escalating. All substantial errors and complaints are referred to senior executives within the editorial staff as a matter of course.
The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about. All complaints will be acknowledged (within three working days if by email). If possible a definitive response will be made within two weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within two weeks. Interim responses will be provided until the complaint is finally resolved. If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final.
How to Make a Complaint
Complaints about editorial content should be made as soon as possible after publication, preferably in writing by email to: editors@ReconstructiveReview.org. Please write your complaint with journal title, vol. no., issue no., paper title, and page no.
Role of Journal Editors in Review and Approval
Reconstructive Review currently has the following journal editors: Editor-in-Chief; Associate Editor for Scientific Quality; Managing Editor along with support from our Editorial Board Members.
The Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief manage the daily operational responsibilities of manuscript submission, review, communication, and publication. The Associate Editor for Scientific Quality and the Editorial Board Members contribute to the overall strategic direction of the journal.
- Managing Editor conducts initial review of any new submission to confirm it was completely and properly submitted
- Managing Editor communicates to the submitting author the need to address any omissions, corrections, and clarifications
- Managing Editor coordinates with the Editor-in-Chief concerning and issues of relevance or quality
- Managing Editor coordinates with the Editor-in-Chief to select reviewers based on their areas of expertise and interest
- Both Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief help assess the clarity of completed reviews and communicate with reviewers about any questions or clarifications
- Once two reviews are complete, the Managing Editor sends the Editor-in-Chief copies of submission and reviews to finalize decision of Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, or Declined Submission
- Communicate the decision of to the corresponding author and provide reviewer comments, corrections, revisions, and improvements; or reasons for rejection
Associate Editor for Scientific Quality responsible for increasing the impact of journal publications by promoting high standards of scientific quality, relevance, credibility, and utility within the journal through the support of its editors, authors and reviewers.
Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
JISRF, Reconstructive Review and its editors take all reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism (all submissions screened using Ithenticate®), citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case does Reconstructive Review or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that Reconstructive Review’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in the journal, JISRF and the senior editorial staff shall follow COPE’s guidelines in dealing with allegations. In addition, Reconstructive Review utilizes a service provided by Crossref called Crossmark. This service gives readers quick and easy access to the current status of a piece of content. With one click, you can see if content has been updated, corrected or retracted.
The Reconstructive Review maintains strategic alliances with the Asia Pacific Arthroplasty Society (APAS), California Orthopaedic Association (COA), International Congress for Joint Reconstruction (ICJR) and Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc.
APAS A small group of twenty orthopaedic arthroplasty surgeons from the Asia-Pacific region met on the Gold Coast of Queensland, in Australia, in 1997 to discuss the need for a scientific body to foster and represent the academic and professional needs of the region. The Asia Pacific Arthroplasty Society – APAS - was born out of that meeting.
COA The California Orthopaedic Association (COA) was organized by officers of the six California chapters of the Western Orthopaedic Association (WOA) on October 27, 1975. It's mission is to protect orthopedic surgeon’s right to practice quality musculoskeletal care by monitoring and taking an active role in legislative and regulatory issues impacting orthopaedic practice and their patients.
ICJR is an independent, nonprofit organization formed to change the status quo of orthopaedic education. Our faculty is dedicated to reinventing the ways we gain knowledge that improves patient outcomes.
Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc. is a group of orthopaedic surgeons located in New Albany, Ohio. They specialize in joint replacement and joint preservation of the hip, knee, and shoulder.
Sources of Support
Reconstructive Review is funded by it's advertisers and publication grants provided by the Joint Implant Surgery and Research Foundation, a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) corporation.
Reconstructive review is the official journal of the Joint Implant Surgery and Research Foundation (JISRF), an orthopaedic research foundation formed in 1971 by Professor Charles Bechtol, MD. First published in October of 2011 it marks a major step in expanding the abilities of JISRF to bring together meaningful research in the area of total joint arthroplasty.