Content published in Orthopaedic Journal of Madhya Pradesh Chapter is peer reviewed (Double Blind). It employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. The submitted manuscripts are assessed by a Triage/Screening Editor for originality of work, scientific adequacy and plagiarism. The manuscripts that fall within the scope of the journal and have an acceptable quality are assigned to a minimum of 2 external reviewers for peer-review. In the peer-review process both the authors and reviewers identities are concealed from each other to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal. The assigned reviewers are given one to two weeks to respond to the review mail and further one week to review the manuscript. The average time for manuscript review takes around 3-4 weeks under regular submission. The reviewers submit their reports to the Editor for further processing. When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can publish the manuscript unaltered, consider after minor/major changes or reject the manuscript. In case, changes as suggested by the reviewers, the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with required amendments. The revised manuscript is reviewed after the changes have been made by the authors and accepted if it meets the publication ethics and author guidelines. The manuscripts are then considered for possible publication on the understanding that they are being submitted only to one journal at a time and have not been published, simultaneously submitted, or accepted for publication elsewhere. Then the article is assessed and the author is informed if the article has been accepted for peer review or has been rejected. If rejected, the corresponding author will be informed via an email. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of content, inadequate quality, or inaccuracy in results.