Editors Guidelines

Operational guidance for editors managing tissue repair submissions.

• Evaluate methodological rigor and reproducibility, not just novelty.
• Ensure conclusions are supported by data and analysis.
• Encourage transparent reporting and data availability statements.
• Summarize key reviewer points in the decision letter.
• Avoid requesting unnecessary experiments or scope drift.
• Maintain professional and respectful communication.
• Recommend statistical review when needed.
• Flag ethical concerns early in the process.

• Respond promptly to editorial office queries.
• Inform the office if review delays occur.
• Provide clear guidance when reviewer comments conflict.
• Maintain respectful tone in communications with authors.
• Document key decisions in the editorial system.
• Escalate integrity issues immediately.

Editors should request focused revisions that strengthen the manuscript and improve clarity. When major revisions are required, specify the critical issues that must be addressed for acceptance.

Use the response letter to verify that authors have addressed reviewer feedback and that revisions are clearly marked in the manuscript.

If reviewer comments conflict, provide guidance to help authors resolve priorities.

Appeals should be evaluated objectively and based on scientific justification. Editors may request additional input from independent reviewers if needed.

All appeal outcomes should be documented and communicated clearly to authors.

Editors play a central role in maintaining quality and fairness across JTRR.