Peer Review Policy

Updated on Feb 22, 2023

The peer review process is intended to ensure that only high-quality manuscripts that meet the mission of Translational Perioperative and Pain Medicine (TPPM or the Journal), are published. This is an objective method of guaranteeing excellence in scholarly publishing that has been adopted by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the high standards of the peer review process outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The staff at the editorial office will screen the manuscript for quality control purposes, the manuscript may be returned for lack of key components of submission or if it does not fit the format of the journal. After the manuscript has passed the initial quality control, it will be assigned to one of the Chief Editors based on the scope of the manuscript. The assigned Editor in Chief may choose to manage the manuscript himself/herself, or assign it to an associate Editor in Chief to manage. It is rare, but possible, for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Some manuscripts will be rejected at this stage due to the scope of the paper, lack of original ideas, having serious scientific flaws, or poor presentation. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed immediately. The manuscripts that meet the initial screening criteria by the managing editor of the journal are normally assigned to at least two expert reviewers.

Type of peer review

The TPPM employs 'single blind' reviewing, in which the reviewers remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, while the identity of the author(s) is known to the reviewers.

How the reviewers are selected

The reviewers are selected based on the keywords of the manuscript to match the expertise of the reviewers in our reviewer database. As our reviewer database is constantly being updated, we welcome suggestions for reviewers from the author(s), however, such non-binding recommendations are not necessarily used. If the reviewer recommended by the authors is considered, only one out of the recommended reviewers will be selected and a mandatory reviewer not recommended by the reviewer must be selected.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is suitable for publication in TPPM, and to answer some fundamental questions listed below about the manuscript:

Do you recommend publishing this article? (Required)

Do you have any conflicts of interest with the authors or topics presented in this article? (Required)

Does this article offer the most up-to-date information to the audience by citing the most up-to-date references? (Required)

Do you think that you learned from this article? (Required)

Do you think that this article raised new questions or provided a solid conclusion in providing safe care for patients? (Required)

Is this article well-written? (Required)

How long does the review process take?

The time required for the review process is dependent upon the response of the reviewers. For the Journal, the typical time for the first round of the reviewing process is less than 6 weeks. We send reminder emails to the invited reviewers two weeks after the review invitation is sent. If no response from the invited reviewer received, we will choose the next alternative reviewers. If there is inconsistent review outcome between different reviewers, or a report is significantly delayed, an additional reviewer will be invited to ensure a timely and fair review of the manuscript. The managing Editor’s decision based on the reviewer’s suggestions will be sent to the assigned Editor in Chief (clinical vs basic science). The Editor in Chief will review the recommendations from the reviewers and the managing editor and make a final decision. The decision will be sent to the authors with the critiques or recommendations for the manuscript from the reviewers and handling editor, usually including the latter’s verbatim comments. The revised manuscripts will be sent to the initial reviewers for further evaluation and recommendations.

Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author, along with the recommendations made by the reviewers and managing editor from the Editor in Chief.

The Chief Editor's decision is final

Manuscript decisions from the editor in Chief are final. If the manuscript is rejected for publication, the journal will no longer consider publishing the revised manuscript unless otherwise specified in the decision letter by the Editor in Chief.

Becoming a reviewer for the Journal

If you are not currently a reviewer for the TPPM but would like to be considered as a reviewer, please contact the Editor in Chief at We appreciate your contributions and support of the missions of the TPPM.