Editorial Policies | Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research

Editorial Principles

ASCR’s decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, and relevance to surgical practice, independent of authors’ ability to pay article processing charges or institutional affiliations. We follow widely recognized community standards for responsible publishing and make our policies public to support transparency and accountability.

What guides our decisions

Integrity and independence: editors act free from commercial or sponsor influence.
Fairness: submissions are evaluated without discrimination based on geography, gender, seniority, or institutional prestige.
Transparency: policies on peer review, authorship, conflicts, and corrections are open and consistently applied.
Accountability: we publish corrections or retractions when necessary to maintain the record.

Standards we align with

Core publishing ethics and best practices from recognized committees and initiatives.
Recommendations for authorship, clinical trial registration, and disclosures used internationally.
Open-access and transparency frameworks for editorial and technical quality.

Governance & Roles

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) has final responsibility for editorial decisions and the integrity of the journal’s content. Associate and Section Editors manage peer review and recommend decisions to the EiC. An international Editorial Board provides subject expertise, policy feedback, and community outreach. The Publisher supports infrastructure, archiving, and dissemination but does not influence editorial decisions.

Editor recusal: Editors do not handle submissions when conflicts of interest exist (e.g., co-authorship, same institution within a conflict window, or financial relationships).
Board participation: Board members are selected for subject expertise, publication record, and commitment to ethical review; terms may be renewable and are periodically reviewed.
Guest Editors: For Special Issues, Guest Editors are screened for conflicts and must apply ASCR policies consistently; oversight is provided by a senior editor.

Confidentiality & Data Protection

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not share, use, or disclose any part of a submission for personal advantage. Identities and contact details of reviewers are kept confidential unless a transparent review pathway is selected by all parties. Personal data collected during submission and review are processed for legitimate journal purposes, safeguarded by access controls, and retained only as long as necessary. Authors, reviewers, and editors may request access, correction, or deletion in line with applicable privacy regulations.

Authorship, Contributorship & Acknowledgments

Authorship implies responsibility and accountability. Authors should meet the recognized criteria for authorship: substantial contributions to the work; drafting or revising the article; final approval; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Contributor roles are captured using the CRediT taxonomy. Individuals who contributed materially but do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., data curation, technical editing, funding acquisition only) should be acknowledged with permission. All authors must approve the final submitted version and any major revisions.

Changes to authorship: Additions, removals, or order changes after submission require written confirmation from all authors and a clear rationale; the editorial office may request institutional verification.

Conflicts of Interest & Funding Disclosures

All authors must declare relationships or activities that could appear to influence the work, including financial support, consulting, equity, patents, speaker fees, or close personal/professional relationships. Editors and reviewers must also disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when appropriate. Funding sources and grant identifiers should be listed in the manuscript and metadata, along with the role of the funder in study design, data collection/analysis, and manuscript preparation. If the funder had no role, state this explicitly.

Peer Review Policy (Summary)

ASCR typically uses double-blind peer review. Editors assess scope fit and minimum reporting standards before inviting qualified reviewers. Review criteria emphasize methodological rigor, ethics compliance, clarity, and clinical relevance. Decisions may be accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. We encourage constructive, actionable feedback and expect reviewers to provide specific comments on study design, statistics, interpretation, and limitations. For article types suitable for transparent review, reviewer reports and author rebuttals may be published with consent.

For complete details, see the dedicated Peer Review Policy page.

Research Integrity & Misconduct

ASCR investigates credible concerns regarding plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, or peer-review manipulation. We use appropriate tools to screen for text and image duplication and may request raw data or additional documentation. Investigations are handled confidentially, fairly, and with a right of response. Where the scholarly record must be corrected, we issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions with clear notices linked by DOIs.

Image & figure integrity

Authors must clearly label adjustments (e.g., brightness/contrast applied to entire image), avoid inappropriate enhancements (e.g., selective alteration of features), and maintain original, unprocessed data. Composites should include clear demarcation lines and labels. Clinical images require consent and de-identification.

Data availability

We encourage deposition of de-identified datasets and analysis code in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers. When legal or ethical constraints limit sharing, authors should provide a transparent data availability statement outlining conditions for access and any de-identification procedures used.

Human & Animal Research

All human research must state the name of the approving ethics committee/institutional review board, protocol identifiers, and the nature of informed consent. Clinical trials and prospective interventional studies should be registered in a recognized registry prior to first patient enrollment. Animal studies must report protocol approval and humane care standards and adhere to reduction, refinement, and replacement principles where applicable.

Use of AI-Assisted Tools

Authors may use computational tools to assist with language editing, analysis, or figure generation provided that they disclose such use in the manuscript (methods or acknowledgments), verify all outputs for accuracy, and accept full responsibility for content. Tools must not fabricate data, citations, or patient consent. Authors should avoid submitting prompts or datasets that contain personally identifiable information unless legally permitted and consented.

Text generation: Authors must review and edit content for accuracy and originality and remain accountable for the manuscript.
Image generation: Do not create or alter clinical images in ways that could mislead; always preserve diagnostic fidelity and disclose any illustrative composites.
Review & editorial use: Reviewers and editors must not input confidential manuscript content into tools that store or reuse data. Confidentiality obligations take precedence.

Advertising, Sponsorship & Supplements

Editorial decisions are independent of commercial interests. ASCR does not permit sponsors or advertisers to influence peer review or editorial outcomes. Any sponsored supplements or thematic collections must undergo standard peer review and adhere to all journal policies. Sponsorship relationships, if present, will be disclosed on relevant pages and within articles where applicable.

Preprints, Media & Prior Dissemination

ASCR welcomes submissions previously posted as preprints. Authors should cite the preprint DOI and describe substantive changes since posting. Media coverage, conference abstracts, or theses do not preclude submission, but authors should disclose prior dissemination. Press activities should avoid overstating non–peer-reviewed claims; once accepted, authors may promote the version of record using the DOI link.

Appeals & Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a concise, evidence-based rationale addressing specific methodological or interpretive issues. Appeals are handled by a senior editor not involved in the original decision; additional external input may be sought. Ethical complaints should include manuscript IDs and documented details; we follow a stepwise, time-bounded process and provide a written outcome. If errors are confirmed, we correct the record promptly.

Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern

When inaccuracies are identified, we issue post-publication updates using industry-standard definitions. Corrections address substantive errors that do not invalidate conclusions; retractions are reserved for unreliable findings arising from error or misconduct; expressions of concern may be issued while investigations are ongoing. Notices are assigned DOIs, linked bidirectionally with the affected article, and include clear reasons for the change.

Transparency of Editorial Statistics

To improve community trust, ASCR may publish annual summaries of editorial metrics—submissions received, acceptance rate, median time to first decision, median time to publication, and distribution by article type. Metrics are contextualized to discourage gaming and to emphasize quality and rigor over speed alone.

Clinical Devices, Drugs & Registrations

Manuscripts evaluating devices, diagnostics, biologics, or drugs should state the regulatory status (e.g., clearance or approval where applicable), registration numbers, and the role of any manufacturer or sponsor. Any financial or in-kind support must be disclosed, including provision of devices or analysis support. Authors should provide access to protocols and statistical analysis plans where feasible.

Reporting Standards

ASCR encourages authors to follow reporting guidelines appropriate to their study design (e.g., CONSORT for trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, STROBE for observational studies, STARD/TRIPOD for diagnostic/prognostic studies, SQUIRE for quality improvement, ARRIVE for animal research, CARE for case reports). Where a guideline recommends a checklist or flow diagram, include it in the submission. Figures and tables must be interpretable without the main text through self-contained legends, units, and defined abbreviations.

Practical Scenarios & How We Respond

Scenario: Undeclared industry relationship

During review, a reviewer flags a potential financial tie between an author and a device manufacturer. The handling editor requests a revised conflict-of-interest statement. If confirmed, the authors update disclosures; if not, the editor documents the assessment. Failure to disclose material conflicts may result in rejection or post-publication correction.

Scenario: Overlapping publication

Similarity checks show substantial overlap with a previously published article by the same authors. The editor requests an explanation and additional analyses demonstrating novelty (e.g., new dataset, extended follow-up). If overlap is redundant, the submission is rejected; if partial and justifiable, the overlap is cited and discussed transparently.

Scenario: Image irregularities

Image screening detects duplicated panels. Authors are asked to provide original, unprocessed files and a description of image processing steps. If inappropriate manipulation is confirmed, the manuscript is rejected; if discovered post-publication, a correction or retraction is issued.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I suggest or exclude reviewers?

Yes. You may suggest qualified, conflict-free reviewers and list non-preferred reviewers with reasons. Editors make final selections to avoid conflicts and ensure expertise.

Does prior posting on a preprint server affect my submission?

No. Preprints are acceptable with full disclosure of the preprint DOI and a summary of substantive changes made during peer review.

How does ASCR handle requests to share data or code?

We encourage open sharing in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers. When data cannot be public due to privacy or legal constraints, provide a data availability statement describing access conditions and de-identification steps.

What if a dispute arises among co-authors?

Authorship disputes are primarily institutional matters. Editors may pause consideration while authors obtain institutional mediation or provide a signed contribution statement from all parties.

How long are reviewer reports and editorial records retained?

Records are retained for a reasonable period to support audit, transparency, and responses to ethical queries, consistent with legal obligations and privacy policies.

Contact

Policy questions or appeals: [email protected] · Ethics concerns: [email protected]