Neurobionplus
Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    
Login 

Users Online: 928 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 


 
 Table of Contents    
LETTER TO THE EDITOR  
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 52  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 439-440
Author reply


Department of Orthopaedics, UCMS and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication6-Jul-2018
 

How to cite this article:
Dhammi IK, Haq RU. Author reply. Indian J Orthop 2018;52:439-40

How to cite this URL:
Dhammi IK, Haq RU. Author reply. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 12];52:439-40. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2018/52/4/439/236130
Sir,

Many thanks for your valuable comments [1] on our recent editorial [2] and previous editorials on similar issues.[3],[4],[5],[6] The Indian Journal of Orthopaedics (IJO) editorial team is committed to take IJO to new heights. Suggestion from all are welcome.

We agree with you that submission to publication time is a very important matrix for editorial team members, and prolonged submission to publication process results in author fatigue, dejection, and unwillingness to submit to that journal. We are aware of this and are trying to minimize it as much as possible. In the year 2017, our submission to decision time was 42.52 days, which was lower than all previous years [Figure 1]. We wish to congratulate each and every member of the editorial team and reviewers for helping us to achieve it. We do agree that there are some manuscripts which do require longer time, especially if they are too technical and have complex statistics or if the topic is too specialised. This happens mainly due to the inability to get adequate reviewers' comments in the first instance due to which they have to be sent for external peer review multiple times. However, we try our best to ensure that such instances are far and few.
Figure 1: Review timeline bar diagram

Click here to view


The review process is the heart and soul [7] of the whole editorial process, and we maintain its sanctity at all cost. As pointed out by you, some innovative steps are definitely required to improve it. Some initiatives that we have taken are as follows:

  1. A committee of senior editorial team members has been formulated to expand the reviewer database and especially include reviewers with subspecialty interest
  2. The idea of rating the reviewers is being actively explored. The editors are in touch with the publishers on this. Once the logistics are worked out, only reviewers with a certain cut off rating would be retained and others would be eased out
  3. The allotment of manuscripts would be further rationalized so that reviewers are optimally selected and utilized
  4. Structured reviews in the form of standardized review forms are a good idea. Some journals have moved to this method, where reviewers are provided with pre-structured review form and they have to give a minimum number of comments on each part of the manuscript, such as introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, tables, and figures etc. We definitely agree with you that the reviewers are the unsung heroes of the whole review process and need more recognition and incentives. We have had a number of discussions on this in the editorial team meetings and also with the executives of the Indian Orthopaedic Association. As and when decisions are taken, we would definitely pass on those benefits to the reviewers.


We are committed to improving not only the quality of the journal, but also the working of editorial team and review process. We have been doing this through editorials in the IJO, IJO session in the IOACON, and editorial team meetings. In the future, we plan to increase them further and we also plan to conduct research methodology workshops/sessions.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Vaishya R. Submission to publication demystified: A guide for authors. Indian J Orthop 2018;52.444.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Dhammi IK, Haq RU. Submission to publication demystified: A guide for authors. Indian J Orthop 2017;51:631-2.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
3.
Ul Haq R, Dhammi IK. Effective medical writing: How to write a case report which editors would publish. Indian J Orthop 2017;51:237-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Dhammi IK, Ul Haq R. Ethics of medical research and publication. Indian J Orthop 2017;51:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Dhammi IK, Ul Haq R. What is plagiarism and how to avoid it? Indian J Orthop 2016;50:581-3.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
6.
Dhammi IK, Kumar S. Process of peer review continues. Indian J Orthop 2013;47:537-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Jain AK. Peer review: Heart and soul of scientific publication. Indian J Orthop 2009;43:3-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ish Kumar Dhammi
Department of Orthopaedics, UCMS and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi - 110 095
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_47_18

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    References
    Article Figures
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed742    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded33    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal