Confidentiality and Ethics | Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research

Core Principles

Confidentiality is foundational to editorial integrity. Editors must protect the identities and materials of authors and reviewers; respect the privacy of research participants; and handle all data in secure, auditable systems. Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and fit to scope—not on authors’ institutional prestige, potential impact, or ability to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs). Editors recuse themselves where conflicts exist, maintain a complete audit trail, and support transparent post-publication updates.

Editors commit to

Keep manuscripts, reviews, and deliberations confidential.
Use secure, journal-approved systems for all editorial work.
Respect patient privacy and require appropriate consent for identifiable information.
Manage conflicts via prompt recusal and independent reassignment.
Document decisions and rationales in the editorial record.

Double-Blind Procedures

ASCR operates a double-blind review model. Editors must enforce blinding from initial screening to decision, except where identities must be shared with staff for integrity or legal reasons. Authors submit a separate Title Page and a Blinded Manuscript; reviewers are instructed to avoid identity-revealing statements and to focus on methods, statistics, and interpretation.

Before review

Verify that Title Page and Blinded Manuscript are separate files.
Scrub file metadata and remove self-identifying phrases where feasible.
Confirm required ethics statements (IRB/IACUC approvals, consent, trial registration).

During review

Redact any identity-revealing text from reviewer comments before sharing.
Discourage reviewers from seeking author identities; reassign if bias is evident.
Maintain neutral, policy-based communications with all parties.

Data Protection & Secure Handling

Editors must treat submitted materials as confidential data under applicable privacy frameworks. Use only journal-approved systems for file storage, messaging, and annotation. Do not upload manuscripts or reviews to external services that retain data or train models on user inputs unless a formal data-processing agreement exists.

Secure handling checklist

Access manuscripts and reviews only through authenticated, encrypted sessions.
Store files within the journal’s platform; avoid personal cloud drives or email attachments.
Disable automatic syncing to unsanctioned devices; do not share files via messaging apps.
Use per-submission notes in the editorial system rather than local documents.
When drafting decision letters, avoid pasting sensitive content into third-party tools.

Tool use: Grammar or reference tools may assist editors, but confidential text must not be provided to services lacking appropriate data protections. Prefer publisher-integrated tools with privacy assurances.

Patient Privacy & Identifiable Information

Clinical manuscripts may contain sensitive details. Editors must ensure that no patient can be identified from text, images, audio, or video without explicit consent for publication. When de-identification is incomplete, require additional anonymization or proof of consent.

Require de-identification of images (masking, cropping) and removal of direct identifiers in text.
For identifiable images (e.g., faces, unique tattoos), require signed consent that permits publication in open access.
Ensure captions and acknowledgments include required credit lines and permissions for third-party content.

Conflicts of Interest & Recusal

Editors must proactively identify and manage conflicts that may influence, or appear to influence, decisions. Conflicts include recent collaborations, shared funding, institutional proximity, personal relationships, and financial interests.

Conflict type	Examples	Required action
Scholarly	Coauthorship within 36 months; shared grant or contract	Immediate recusal; assign to independent Editor
Institutional	Same department or reporting line as any author	Recuse; record reassignment in system
Financial	Equity, consulting, sponsored travel tied to topic	Recuse and disclose to Editor-in-Chief
Personal	Close personal relationships; adversarial history	Recuse to preserve impartiality

Records Retention & Access Control

Maintain a complete, time-stamped editorial history for each submission. Restrict access to essential personnel. Retain integrity-related materials (similarity reports, image-forensics correspondence) in the system rather than local storage.

Record every decision, rationale, deadline, reminder, and reassignment.
Store waiver/billing information separately from editorial views to avoid influence on decisions.
Retain documents according to the journal’s retention schedule and legal requirements.

Incident Response & Breach Handling

Any suspected confidentiality breach must be escalated promptly. Editors should document the incident, preserve evidence, and notify the Editor-in-Chief and publisher. Where personal data are involved, follow the journal’s notification procedures and applicable regulations.

Rapid response steps

Secure the account or device; change credentials; revoke external access if applicable.
Document what was exposed (files, identities, timestamps) and who may have accessed it.
Notify the editorial office and publisher; follow internal guidance on informing affected parties.
Complete a post-incident review and implement preventive measures.

Professional Communications

Editorial communications should be respectful, precise, and policy-referential. Avoid ad hominem or identity-focused comments. Maintain an auditable trail by using the journal’s message system instead of personal email whenever possible.

Templates & Snippets

Confidentiality reminder to reviewers: Thank you for reviewing for ASCR. Please keep the manuscript, data, and your comments confidential and do not share them with colleagues or external tools. If you wish to involve a trainee, request permission and ensure the trainee agrees to confidentiality.

Redaction note to authors: We have redacted text that could compromise double-blind review (e.g., institution names, unique project identifiers). This does not affect editorial independence and will be restored after review as appropriate.

Consent request for identifiable images: Please upload evidence of explicit consent for publication of identifiable images (patient face/tattoo) or replace images with de-identified alternatives.

Responsible Use of Editorial & AI Tools

Use only vetted tools integrated with the journal’s systems or covered by suitable agreements. Confidential content must not be uploaded to external services that retain inputs or train on user data. Editors remain responsible for the content of decision letters; automated suggestions are aids, not substitutes.

Do not paste manuscripts into external generative tools without explicit clearance.
When permitted tools are used, avoid entering author names, reviewer identities, or patient details.
Store outputs (decision letters, checklists) within the editorial platform.

Scenarios & Ethical Responses

Scenario: Reviewer requests to share with trainee

Approve only if the reviewer identifies the trainee, confirms confidentiality, and agrees that the trainee’s name will be listed in the review acknowledgments where applicable. Otherwise, decline and offer mentoring resources.

Scenario: Editor knows authors’ identities

A preprint reveals authorship. Maintain double-blind shielding for reviewers and proceed with neutral, evidence-based assessment. Document awareness and ensure it does not influence reviewer selection or decision.

Scenario: Confidential data uploaded to external app

Initiate incident response. Remove the data, rotate credentials, and document exposure. Notify the office and follow notification protocols.

Scenario: Patient image without consent

Request de-identification or documented consent. If neither is possible, decline the figure or the submission depending on context and risk.

Equity, Inclusion & Bias Mitigation

Editors should promote equitable participation by broadening reviewer pools, recognizing methodological expertise across career stages, and monitoring invitation/response patterns. Decision letters should use inclusive, bias-aware language focused on the work, not identity.

Track reviewer diversity (self-reported) and seek balance across geography and expertise.
Encourage authors to suggest diverse, qualified reviewers; verify independence before inviting.
Remove identity-related speculation from reviewer reports before sharing.

Transparency, Data Availability & Reproducibility

Editors should encourage precise reporting: exact p-values, effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals, and appropriate reporting checklists (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE, CARE, SQUIRE). Data Availability Statements should be specific; where open sharing is not possible, confirm controlled access and de-identification.

Post-Publication Responsibilities

Editors coordinate corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions as citable notices with DOIs and bidirectional links. Update article pages and PDFs with status indicators and notify indexers via metadata deposits. Keep a clear audit trail for all post-publication actions.

Quick Checklists

Before handling a file

COI self-check complete; recuse if needed.
Blinded files verified; metadata scrubbed.
Ethics statements and trial registration present.
Use only approved systems for access and notes.

During review

At least two independent reviewers; conflicts screened.
Redact identity-revealing text in reviewer comments.
Secure communications; no external sharing.

At decision & beyond

Decision grounded in evidence; rationale recorded.
Appeals handled by an independent senior Editor.
Post-publication updates issued and linked via DOIs when warranted.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I email a manuscript to a colleague for an informal view?

No. Manuscripts and reviews are confidential. Use formal reviewer invitations to maintain records, conflicts screening, and confidentiality commitments.

May I use grammar or summarization tools on decision letters?

Only if the tool is approved and does not store or reuse content. When in doubt, do not paste confidential text into third-party services.

What if a reviewer reveals an author’s identity?

Redact the comment, remind the reviewer of double-blind rules, and consider seeking an additional review to mitigate bias.

Do APC waivers affect editorial outcomes?

Never. Waiver and billing information are managed separately from editorial decision-making.

Contact

Confidentiality and ethics queries: [email protected] · Technical/security support: [email protected]