The International Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine (IJOTM) welcomes the support of expert reviewers who contribute to the scientific quality, integrity, and clinical relevance of the journal. Peer review is a central part of the editorial process and helps ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of originality, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and scholarly value.
IJOTM uses a single-blind peer review model. In this system, reviewers are aware of the identities of the authors, but reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers serve as independent academic advisors to the Editor and play an essential role in helping the journal reach fair, constructive, and informed editorial decisions.
Purpose of Peer Review
The aim of peer review at IJOTM is to assess whether a submitted manuscript is scientifically sound, ethically acceptable, clearly presented, and relevant to the field of transplantation medicine. Reviewers are asked to evaluate not only whether the work is technically correct, but also whether it makes a meaningful contribution to research, clinical practice, education, or policy in organ and tissue transplantation.
Reviewers are expected to provide balanced, objective, and constructive assessments that help the Editor reach a decision and help authors improve their manuscripts.
Scope of the Journal
Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and whether it is suitable for the journal. IJOTM publishes research related to the broad field of transplantation medicine, including basic science, translational research, clinical transplantation, surgery, donor evaluation, organ procurement and preservation, transplant immunology, immunosuppressive therapy, graft survival, transplant complications, infection, malignancy, outcomes research, ethics, psychosocial issues, and emerging fields such as xenotransplantation and regenerative approaches.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and in confidence. A reviewer should accept an invitation only if the manuscript is within their field of competence and they can provide a review within the requested time.
By agreeing to review for IJOTM, reviewers are asked to:
maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all associated materials;
declare any conflicts of interest that may affect their judgment;
provide an objective, scholarly, and evidence-based assessment;
identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas needing revision;
comment on the originality, importance, clarity, and scientific validity of the work;
alert the Editor to possible ethical concerns, duplicate publication, plagiarism, image irregularities, or questionable data presentation;
submit their review within the agreed review period.
Reviewers should not use any part of an unpublished manuscript for their own research, teaching, professional advantage, or personal communication without prior written permission from the journal.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share the manuscript with colleagues, trainees, or any third party without prior approval from the Editor. The manuscript should not be discussed publicly or used in any manner outside the peer review process.
If a reviewer feels that consultation with a colleague is necessary, permission should first be obtained from the Editor. Any approved contributor should also respect the confidentiality of the review process.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline to review any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. Conflicts may be personal, academic, financial, professional, or institutional. Examples include close collaboration with the authors, direct competition, personal relationships, or financial interests related to the study outcome.
If there is any uncertainty about a possible conflict, reviewers should inform the Editor and seek guidance before proceeding.
Initial Considerations Before Reviewing
When invited to review, reviewers should first consider the following questions:
Is the subject matter within my area of expertise?
Can I provide a fair and timely review?
Do I have any conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or subject matter?
Can I review this manuscript objectively and confidentially?
If the answer to any of these raises concern, the reviewer should decline the invitation promptly so that the manuscript can be reassigned without delay.
General Review Criteria
Reviewers are encouraged to assess the manuscript as a whole and then comment on its individual components. In general, the following areas should be considered.
Originality and relevance: Does the manuscript address an important question in transplantation medicine? Is the work sufficiently novel, or does it offer useful confirmation, refinement, or application of existing knowledge? Is it relevant to clinicians, researchers, educators, or policymakers in the field?
Scientific quality: Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Are the methods adequately described and suitable? Are the sample size, controls, measurements, and analyses appropriate? Are conclusions supported by the results?
Ethical standards: Does the manuscript indicate appropriate ethical approval for studies involving humans or animals? Is informed consent mentioned where relevant? Are there any concerns regarding data integrity, patient privacy, image handling, or research misconduct?
Clarity and organization: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized? Are the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions easy to follow? Does the presentation require major language revision or structural improvement?
Clinical or scientific contribution: Does the work add value to the field? Will it inform practice, stimulate further research, improve understanding, or influence policy or education in transplantation medicine?
Section-by-Section Evaluation
Title and Abstract
Reviewers should assess whether the title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript and whether the abstract provides a clear, balanced, and informative summary of the objectives, methods, key results, and conclusions. The abstract should not overstate findings and should remain consistent with the main text.
Introduction
The introduction should present the background necessary to understand the study, summarize the key literature, identify the knowledge gap, and clearly state the research question, objective, or hypothesis. Reviewers should consider whether the rationale for the study is compelling and appropriately framed.
Materials and Methods
This section is central to scientific validity. Reviewers should consider whether the methods are described in enough detail to permit understanding and reproducibility, whether the design is appropriate, whether patient or sample selection is clearly explained, whether outcomes are defined, and whether the analytical strategy is sound.
Reviewers should pay special attention to ethical approval, informed consent, inclusion and exclusion criteria, follow-up methods, intervention descriptions, laboratory techniques, outcome measures, and statistical analysis. If the study includes complex methods or advanced statistical modeling, reviewers should assess whether the approach appears appropriate and sufficiently explained.
Results
The results should be presented clearly, logically, and without unnecessary repetition. Reviewers should evaluate whether the data are internally consistent across the text, tables, and figures; whether the analyses answer the stated research question; and whether any important findings are omitted or overemphasized.
Reviewers should also assess whether tables and figures are necessary, clear, accurate, and appropriately cited in the text.
Discussion
The discussion should interpret the findings in the context of existing literature without overstating the importance of the results. Reviewers should consider whether the conclusions are justified, whether study limitations are acknowledged, and whether implications for practice or further research are presented in a balanced manner.
References
Reviewers should comment on whether the references are relevant, current where appropriate, and sufficient to support the discussion. They may suggest important missing references, but should avoid recommending citation of their own work unless it is genuinely necessary for scholarly completeness.
Article-Type Specific Considerations
Original Articles
For original research papers, reviewers should focus on novelty, methodological rigor, statistical soundness, clarity of presentation, and importance to the field. The conclusions should follow directly from the data.
Short Communications
Short communications should report concise but meaningful findings. Reviewers should assess whether the study is sufficiently important to merit publication in shorter form and whether the manuscript communicates the message clearly and efficiently.
Case Reports
Case reports should be reviewed for educational value, rarity, novelty, or relevance to clinical decision-making in transplantation medicine. A case report should provide more than a routine observation; it should offer a significant lesson, unusual clinical insight, or important management implication.
Review Articles
Review articles should provide a clear synthesis of the literature, a balanced interpretation of current evidence, and a useful overview of the topic. Reviewers should consider the comprehensiveness of coverage, scholarly balance, structure, and usefulness to readers.
Letters to the Editor
Letters should be concise, focused, evidence-based, and relevant. They may comment on recently published work, discuss issues of scientific or clinical importance, or present brief observations of value to readers.
Statistical and Methodological Review
When a manuscript includes advanced statistical analysis or specialized methodology, reviewers should comment on whether the analysis appears appropriate to the study design and data structure. Important points include clarity of endpoint definitions, appropriateness of tests, handling of missing data, adjustment for confounding, use of multivariable models, and the distinction between statistical significance and clinical importance.
If a reviewer feels that a manuscript requires formal statistical review beyond their expertise, this should be communicated to the Editor.
Ethical Concerns and Research Integrity
Reviewers should notify the Editor if they suspect any of the following:
plagiarism or substantial textual overlap with published or submitted work;
duplicate submission or redundant publication;
fabrication, falsification, or selective presentation of data;
inappropriate image manipulation;
absence of ethical approval or informed consent where required;
breaches of patient confidentiality;
undeclared conflicts of interest;
misleading interpretation or unsupported conclusions.
Concerns of this kind should be reported confidentially to the Editor and should not be stated as accusations in comments intended for the authors unless specifically advised by the journal.
Writing the Review Report
A good review should be clear, respectful, specific, and constructive. Even when recommending rejection, reviewers should explain the reasons in a professional and scholarly manner. Comments should help the authors understand the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and, when possible, how it may be improved.
A useful review often includes:
a brief summary of the manuscript and its contribution;
general comments on overall quality and importance;
major concerns that affect validity, interpretation, ethics, or suitability for publication;
minor comments on clarity, presentation, references, grammar, terminology, tables, or figures.
Comments to authors should remain constructive and courteous. Comments to the Editor may include confidential concerns regarding suitability, originality, ethical issues, or publication priority.
Recommendation Categories
Reviewers may be asked to recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:
Accept (The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minimal editorial changes.)
Minor Revision (The manuscript is potentially acceptable after limited revision that does not require major restructuring or additional substantial analysis.)
Major Revision (The manuscript has merit but requires significant revision before it can be reconsidered. This may involve clarification of methods, further analysis, improved interpretation, reorganization, or substantial textual revision.)
Reject (The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form because of major scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related concerns, or because the work does not make a sufficient contribution to the field.)
Reviewers should remember that the final editorial decision rests with the Editor, not with the reviewers.
Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have responded adequately to previous comments and whether the revised version has improved sufficiently. Reviewers should focus on whether the main concerns have been addressed, whether the responses are satisfactory and evidence-based, and whether any new issues have arisen during revision.
Tone and Professional Conduct
Reviewers should maintain a respectful and professional tone at all times. Criticism should be directed toward the manuscript, not the authors. Personal remarks, dismissive language, or unnecessarily harsh comments are inappropriate. The aim of peer review is to improve scholarship and support fair editorial judgment.
Timeliness
Timely peer review is essential to an efficient editorial process. Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to submit their report within the requested period. If circumstances change and a timely review is no longer possible, the reviewer should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
Communication with the Journal
Questions about the review process, reviewer expectations, or possible conflicts of interest may be directed to the journal’s Editorial Office. Reviewers should communicate any significant concerns promptly so that the Editor can manage the review process appropriately and fairly.
Final Note
IJOTM greatly values the contribution of its reviewers. Careful, ethical, and constructive peer review helps maintain the scientific quality of the journal and supports the advancement of transplantation medicine worldwide.