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By submitting your article to Reconstructive Review it is understood that this it is an original article and is unpublished work and is not under consideration elsewhere.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 may be checked for originality using anti-plagiarism software
Conflicts of Interest
At the point of submission, each author should reveal any financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated – including pertinent commercial or other sources of funding for the individual author(s) or for the associated department(s) or organization(s), personal relationships, or direct academic competition. When considering whether you should declare a conflicting interest or connection please consider the conflict of interest test: Is there any arrangement that would embarrass you or any of your co-authors if it was to emerge after publication and you had not declared it?
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.
If the article is published, Conflict of Interest information, including if none was declared, will be communicated in a statement in the published paper.
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.
When reporting on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration (1964, amended most recently in 2008) of the World Medical Association. 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.
Reconstructive Review publishes original submissions. All submissions to Reconstructive Review are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor. At this stage articles may be rejected without peer review if it is felt that they are not of high enough priority or not relevant to Reconstructive Review. This fast rejection process means that authors are given a quick decision and do not need to wait for the review process. Submissions that are not instantly rejected are sent out for peer review, usually to two independent reviewers. This is a double blind peer review process. Based on the feedback from these reviewers and the judgment of the editorial team, a decision is given on the article. Articles may also be sent out for statistical review.
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.