We believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in the peer review process of Journal of Trauma and Injury (JTI). All of the journal's contents, including commissioned manuscripts, are subject to peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JTI adopts a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the review process.

The Role of Reviewers

The peer reviewer's role is to advise editors on individual manuscripts to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be clearly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guidelines is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest, and they should point out relevant published work that is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendations.

Accepting an Invitation to Review

Editors invite reviewers to review because they believe that the reviewers are experts in a certain area. Before accepting an invitation to review a paper, reviewers should consider the following questions:

· Are you qualified?
If you do not have the necessary expertise in the subject matter or the research methodology of the paper, please decline the invitation to review.

· Do you have time?
If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14-day review period, please decline to review, or ask for an extension of the review period.

· Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
In case of any potential conflicts of interest, you should decline to review. If you still wish to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.

How to Write Review Comments

After logging into the e-submission system using your ID and password, please download the PDF files and any supplementary files. While it is not necessary to comment on the style and format of the paper, reviewers should focus on assessing the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

• Review table with the seven items (Originality, Scientific importance, Experimental design, Adequacy of methods, Brevity and clarity, Overall priority for publication, Potential if adequately revised) is provided for the reviewer's convenience.

• Comment to authors
Summarize the whole content of the manuscript in one sentence. Please mention the strengths of the manuscript but also point out any problems that make it unsuitable for publication or any requirements for corrections that would make it publishable.

• Comment to editor
Adding both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript are recommended. The reviewer's recommendation on acceptance may be added here, including a special opinion to the editor.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

• Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.

• Please inform the editor of any conflicts of interest as follows: (1) the reviewer is a competitor; (2) the reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s); or (3) the reviewer may profit financially from the work. In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline the invitation to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed. A history of previous collaboration with the author(s) or any intimate relationship with the author(s) does not prohibit the review.

• Reviewers should not use any material or data originating from the manuscript under review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.