Editorial Board

The Editorial Board serves as the academic and professional backbone of the journal, ensuring the publication of high-quality, ethically reviewed, and clinically relevant content. This section typically appears on the journal’s website or as part of its front matter in issues. Here's how it's typically structured:

1. Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is the primary authority responsible for all editorial decisions. They set the editorial vision, lead the review process, and coordinate with publishers.

Editor-in-Chief  
Dr Niraj Kumar Yadav
MS, FIOPS, FAICO, FICM, FID, NDEP
Ophthalmic Plastic & Facial Aesthetic Surgeon 
Dr KNS Memorial Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India
President: WAOPRS, WAOS, WOTA, IAO, IMO  
Email: dr.nirajyadav@gmail.com

 

2. Associate Editors / Deputy Editors

These individuals assist the Editor-in-Chief by handling specific submissions, especially in subspecialty areas (e.g., orbital surgery, eyelid reconstruction, lacrimal disorders).

3. International Advisory Board

Many journals, especially with a global scope like WJOPRS, include International or Regional Editors to represent different continents and broaden expertise.

4. Editorial Board Members

These are experienced professionals in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery who review papers, provide guidance on submissions, and uphold the quality of the journal. Their affiliations, expertise, and geographic diversity help ensure balanced, global contributions.

Editorial Board Members  

5. Managing Editor / Editorial Staff

Include key staff who coordinate manuscript submissions, correspond with authors, and manage production.

Editorial Procedure – WJOPRS

The World Journal of Oculofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (WJOPRS) follows a transparent, rigorous, and ethical editorial workflow to ensure the publication of high-quality and clinically relevant research in the field of oculoplastic and reconstructive eye surgery.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts online through the journal’s submission portal. All submissions must comply with the journal’s author guidelines regarding formatting, referencing style, and ethical disclosures.

• Acceptable formats: .doc or .docx

• Figures submitted as separate high-resolution files

• All authors must declare conflicts of interest

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor performs a preliminary review to assess:

• Scope relevance

• Scientific quality

• Language clarity

• Ethical compliance

• Plagiarism screening (using anti-plagiarism software)

Outcomes:

• Sent for peer review

• Returned to the author for formatting or scope issues

• Rejected without review (desk rejection)

3. Peer Review Process

WJOPRS follows a double-blind peer review policy:

• Reviewers do not know the authors' identities

• Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field, focusing on:

• Methodological rigor

• Novelty and significance

• Ethical compliance

• Clarity of presentation

• Relevance to clinical or surgical practice

Reviewers are given 2–3 weeks to submit their evaluations.

Peer review

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is the critical evaluation of a scholarly work by independent experts in the same field. It is the system used to assess the quality, validity, and significance of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers with relevant expertise assess submitted manuscripts for originality and scientific merit to help editors determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal. 

How does it work?

When a manuscript is submitted, it first undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to ensure it meets the journal's submission criteria and scope. If it meets these requirements, the manuscript is sent for peer review. The editorial team assigns the manuscript to potential reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. These reviewers provide detailed feedback, including recommendations for modifications. This valuable feedback helps improve the quality of the research and ensures its suitability for publication. 

Double blind peer review

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, which means the identities of both the author and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. This anonymity helps maintain the integrity of the review by ensuring that research is evaluated based on its content and merit rather than the reputation or background of the authors. 

Guidelines for Reviewers

When you are invited to review a manuscript, please consider the following points:

• Expertise: Does the manuscript align with your area of expertise? The editor who approached you may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Please review the abstract to determine if you are competent to provide a thorough assessment. Only accept an invitation if you have the necessary expertise.
• Time Commitment: Reviewing a manuscript is a time-consuming task, often requiring an average of 4-6 hours for a thorough evaluation. Please consider whether you can meet the deadline provided in the invitation. If you are unable to conduct the review, please inform the editor immediately. If possible, we encourage you to suggest an alternative reviewer.
• Conflicts of Interest: Are there any potential conflicts of interest that could influence your judgment? This may include personal, professional, or financial interests. A conflict of interest does not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing, but you must disclose it fully to the editor to allow them to make an informed decision.

Detailed Manuscript Evaluation

1. Manuscript Structure: Are all key elements present: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and References?
2. Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?
3. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
4. Introduction: Does it clearly state the problem being investigated and the study's objective? It should summarise relevant research to provide context and explain what findings are being challenged or extended.
5. Material and methods: Does the author explain how the data were collected with enough detail for the research to be replicated? Is the study design suitable for answering the research question? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described?
6. Results: Are the findings presented clearly and in a logical sequence? Has the appropriate statistical analysis been conducted? (If you are not comfortable assessing the statistics, please advise the editor). This section should be free of interpretation.
7. Discussion and conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results? Do the authors explain how the results relate to previous research? Does the conclusion clarify how the research advances scientific knowledge?

Reviewing Specific Aspects 

• Language: It is not the reviewer's job to copyedit a manuscript for language. If a paper is poorly written to the extent that it is difficult to understand, please bring this to the editor's attention. You may suggest a "Minor Revision" for the author to address language issues.
•  Previous research: Does the article appropriately reference the previous research it builds upon? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the citations accurate?
• Ethical Issues: 
• Plagiarism: If you suspect that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, please notify the editor in detail.
• Fraud: It is difficult to detect deliberate fraud, but if you have serious concerns about the authenticity of the results, please discuss them confidentially with the editor.
• Other Ethical Concerns: For medical research, ensure patient confidentiality has been maintained. Any violation of accepted norms for the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects should be reported to the editor.

• Prioritising the Review: Scientific Content vs. Formatting
  To ensure an efficient and effective review, we ask reviewers to prioritise the scientific merit of the manuscript over minor copyediting issues.

• Minor Spelling and Grammar: Reviewers are not expected to correct minor spelling or grammatical mistakes. These will be addressed by our production team during the copyediting phase. Please only comment on language if it impedes a clear understanding of the science.
• Reference Formatting: Please focus on the content and accuracy of the references (e.g., ensuring key studies are cited) rather than the specific formatting or style (e.g., punctuation, italics). The reference list will be formatted according to the journal's style during production.

Conducting the Review

Your review must be conducted confidentially. The manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to any third party. You should not attempt to contact the author directly. Please be aware that your recommendations will contribute significantly to the final decision made by the editor.

Peer Reviewer Responsibilities

1. Accept or Decline Promptly

   • Confirm your ability to review within the requested time (usually 2–3 weeks).

   • Decline if you have a conflict of interest or lack the required expertise.

2. Ensure Confidentiality

   • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content.

   • Do not share, distribute, or discuss with others without the editor's permission.

3. Assess Scientific Merit
   Evaluate:

   • Originality and novelty of the research

   • Methodological rigor and study design

   • Data integrity and statistical analysis

   • Relevance to ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery

   • Clinical or scientific contribution to the field

4. Provide Constructive Feedback

   • Be specific, objective, and professional.

   • Comment on strengths and weaknesses.

   • Avoid personal remarks or overly harsh language.

   • Suggest improvements or literature that the authors may have missed.

5. Check for Ethical Issues

   • Human/animal ethics approval mentioned?

   • Informed consent obtained?

   • Plagiarism or data fabrication?

   • Conflict of interest not disclosed?

6. Review Structure and Language

   • Clarity of abstract, introduction, and conclusion

   • Logical flow of arguments

   • Tables and figures: appropriate and clearly labelled?

   • Language: understandable, grammatically correct?

7. Use Structured Format (if applicable)
   Provide recommendations using a structure such as:

   • Summary of manuscript

   • Major issues

   • Minor issues

   • Overall recommendation (confidential to editor)

8. Recommendation Options

   • Accept without revision

   • Minor revision

   • Major revision

   • Reject

   Note: Final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. Your recommendation is advisory.

9. Declare Conflicts of Interest

   • If you have collaborated with the authors or are cited extensively in the paper, notify the editor.

10. Timely Submission

• Return your review by the deadline.

• Notify the editorial office if delays are expected.

Originality and Significance

• Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the body of knowledge?
• Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question important?
• To determine originality, you may wish to conduct a literature search using tools like PubMed, Scopus, or the Cochrane Library to see if the research has been covered previously. www.cochranelibrary.com/

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The journal follows the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. We are committed to ensuring that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely. The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Minor revision

• Major revision

• Reject

For revision decisions, authors are required to submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments and a revised manuscript within a specified timeframe.

5. Revised Manuscript Handling

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the same reviewers (where possible). The editor may request further revisions or proceed to the final decision based on the changes made.

6. Final Acceptance and Production

Upon final acceptance:

• Manuscript is sent to copyediting and typesetting

• Authors review proofs and submit corrections

• The article is assigned a DOI and queued for online and print publication

7. Post-Publication

Published articles are indexed in relevant databases and made accessible online. Corrections, errata, or retractions follow COPE guidelines if needed.

🛡️ Ethical Oversight

WJOPRS adheres to ethical standards set by:

• ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)

• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)

Declaration of Helsinki for human studies

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines:  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is just a supporting tool. It cannot replace human judgment, critical thinking, or scientific integrity. It is understood how rapidly tools like Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative AI are transforming the way we work in research and publishing. We are committed to promoting the ethical and responsible use of AI in all aspects of research publication. We are committed to promoting the ethical and responsible use of AI in all aspects of research publication.

For Reviewers and Editors

Peer reviewers hold an utmost role in maintaining the quality and credibility of research. Thus, it is essential to approach this responsibility with transparency and care.

1. AI tools must not be used to process or review submitted manuscripts. Uploading any part of a manuscript to an AI tool can: Violate confidentiality.
2. Breach the author’s rights.
3. Potentially compromise personal or sensitive data.

Manuscript review requires human expertise, thoughtful analysis, and subject-specific judgement. While AI can mimic patterns, it cannot offer the depth or accountability that human reviewers provide.

Cautious Use and Disclosure of AI Tools

If an AI tool is used in any way to support the evaluation of a manuscript’s claims, reviewers must obtain prior approval from the journal first. Additionally, the use of such tools must be clearly and transparently disclosed in the peer review report. While AI-generated content may appear accurate or authoritative, it can often be misleading, biased, or incomplete. Therefore, reviewers are strongly advised to use such tools with proper care.

Overall, reviewers and editors need to be very careful with their review reports and uphold the standards of the peer-review process in publication.

The Manuscript Workflow: A Step-by-Step Guide

1. Manuscript Submission
   The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal through the link provided on www.waoprs.org. In rare, exceptional cases, the journal may grant permission for submission by email (waoprs@gmail.com).
2. Editorial Office Scrutiny
   The editorial office performs an initial technical check to ensure the manuscript's composition and arrangement adhere to the journal's Author Guidelines. The scientific quality of the paper is not assessed at this stage.
3. Initial Evaluation by the Editor
   

   The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript to determine if it is appropriate for the journal's scope and if it is sufficiently original and significant.

   • If suitable: The manuscript is assigned to peer reviewers.
   • If not suitable: The manuscript may be rejected outright ("desk reject") or returned to the author with a request for revision before it can be considered for peer review.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
   The handling editor sends invitations to potential reviewers with relevant expertise in the field. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers is secured (typically two, though this may vary).
5. Reviewer Response
   Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. They then accept or decline the invitation. When declining, it is helpful if they suggest alternative reviewers.
6. The Review is Conducted
   The reviewer reads the manuscript thoroughly to form an assessment of the work. If major flaws are identified immediately, the reviewer may recommend rejection without a full point-by-point review, providing clear reasons for this decision. Otherwise, the reviewer will prepare a detailed report. The review is then submitted to the journal with a recommendation to Accept, Reject, or Revise (Major or Minor).
7. Editor Evaluates the Reviews
   The editor considers all reviewer reports before making a final decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to provide an extra opinion before making a decision.
8. Decision is Communicated
   The editor sends a decision email to the author, including the anonymous reviewer comments.
9. Final Outcome and Next Steps
   • Acceptance: If accepted, the manuscript is sent to the production team.
   • Revision: The editor may request revisions based on reviewer feedback. If the paper is sent back for revision, the original reviewers may be asked to assess the new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. For minor changes, the handling editor may conduct the follow-up review.
   • Rejection: If rejected, the author is informed with a clear justification for the decision. In some cases, even with a rejection, the editor may include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the work for submission elsewhere.
   • At this stage, reviewers are also notified of the final decision on the manuscript they reviewed.
10. Post-Acceptance
    After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage. This includes copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. A galley proof is shared with the corresponding author for a final check to prevent errors in the published version. Once all production steps are complete, the article is scheduled for publication online and, if applicable, in print.
11. Recognition for Reviewer Contributions
    

    After submitting a review, reviewers will receive a thank-you email from the editorial office.

    • Web of Science Recognition: To receive verified recognition for their work on Web of Science (formerly Publons), reviewers can forward this thank-you email to reviews@webofscience.com to have the record added to their profile.
    • Certificate: A Certificate of Reviewing can also be downloaded directly from the reviewer's panel in the waoprs portal, once a final decision on the manuscript is made.