Warning: file_exists(): open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/locale/en_US/locale.po) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/:/tmp/) in /var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/httpdocs/lib/pkp/classes/plugins/Plugin.inc.php on line 519

Warning: file_exists(): open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/locale/en_US/locale.po) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/:/tmp/) in /var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/httpdocs/lib/pkp/classes/plugins/Plugin.inc.php on line 519
Editorial Responsibilities | Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research

Editorial Independence & Accountability

Editors are responsible for the scientific quality and fairness of decisions. Editorial decisions must be independent from commercial considerations, advertising, and the ability or willingness of authors to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs). Acceptance is based solely on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and alignment with journal scope and policies.

Conflicts of Interest & Recusal

Editors must declare and manage conflicts of interest (COIs), including recent collaborations with authors, shared funding, institutional ties, personal relationships, or financial interests. When a COI exists, the Editor must recuse and transfer responsibility to an independent colleague designated by the Editor-in-Chief.

Fairness, Equity & Bias Mitigation

Editors should promote diverse and inclusive scholarship by building reviewer pools that reflect breadth in geography, gender, career stage, and methodological expertise. Editorial communications must focus on methods, results, and interpretation—not on identities or affiliations.

Research Integrity & Ethical Safeguards

Editors are responsible for preventing and addressing misconduct and for reinforcing good research practices. They should follow published flowcharts and journal procedures when concerns arise, documenting each step in the editorial record.

Stewarding Peer Review

Editors manage double-blind peer review to ensure constructive, evidence-based critiques delivered in a timely manner. Reviewer selection should avoid conflicts and cover complementary expertise. Editors must enforce civility and remove ad hominem content prior to relaying comments.

Decisions, Appeals & Transparency

Editors must base decisions on the balance of evidence and journal criteria, not on reviewer votes alone. Decision letters should summarize key reasons and provide clear, actionable guidance. Appeals are handled by an independent senior Editor who was not involved in the original decision.

Transparency, Data & Reproducibility

Editors encourage transparency norms that improve trust and reuse: detailed methods; effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals; data and code availability; persistent identifiers for datasets and software; and disclosure of competing interests and funding sources.

Post-publication Updates & the Scholarly Record

Editors coordinate with the publisher to issue and link citable updates (corrections, retractions, expressions of concern) with their own DOIs and bidirectional relations to the affected articles. Article pages and PDFs should show status badges and links to ensure readers see the current record.

Complaints, Appeals & Allegations

Editors must handle complaints and allegations respectfully, promptly, and in line with ethics guidance. Where institutional or regulatory investigations are required, maintain a clear audit trail and preserve confidentiality as appropriate.

Professional Communication

Editors set the tone for collegial, constructive dialogue. Communications with authors and reviewers should be respectful, precise, and policy-referential. Templates are provided to support efficiency and consistency.

Handoff to Production

  • Verify final files (figures at resolution; editable tables; permissions and credit lines).
  • Confirm license (CC BY 4.0), funding statements, and conflict disclosures.
  • Ensure Crossref metadata (DOI, funding, license, relations) are ready for deposit.
  • Check that repository guidance is included in acceptance emails.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I handle a manuscript from my institution?

No. Route it to a conflict-free Editor to maintain independence and avoid perceived bias.

How do I proceed when reviewers disagree?

Focus on methodological evidence. Seek a third review or adjudicate based on the strength and reproducibility of arguments rather than vote counting.

What if I suspect image manipulation?

Request original images and acquisition details; require visible splice demarcations; consult integrity tools and follow established flowcharts for investigations.

Can an author’s inability to pay APCs affect the decision?

Never. Editorial decisions are independent of APCs, waivers, or billing status.

Contact

Editorial queries, appeals, and ethics notifications: editorial@clinsurgeryjournal.com · Technical support: support@clinsurgeryjournal.com