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.

Editors commit to

Apply journal policies consistently and transparently.
Record rationales for decisions in the editorial system.
Publish corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern when warranted.
Maintain confidentiality of submissions, reviews, and deliberations.

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.

COI self-check

Recent coauthorship (typically within 36 months) with any author.
Shared grant, contract, or employment relationship within 3 years.
Institutional proximity (same department or reporting line).
Personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as biasing.
Financial interests in competing products or interventions.

Recusal protocol

Stop handling the file immediately upon recognizing a COI.
Assign to a conflict-free Editor or the Editor-in-Chief’s delegate.
Record the recusal and reassignment in the editorial history.

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.

Practical steps

Maintain reviewer databases with subject tags and diversity markers (self-reported where appropriate).
Encourage authors to suggest diverse, qualified reviewers with justification.
Audit reviewer invitations and acceptance rates to avoid over-reliance on a narrow group.
Redact identity-revealing phrases in reviewer reports before sharing with authors in a double-blind process.

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.

Integrity checks

Similarity screening; evaluate overlap in context (methods reuse vs. plagiarism).
Image/data forensics as needed; request original, unprocessed files when concerns arise.
Confirm ethics approvals (IRB/IACUC), informed consent, and trial registration before review for interventional studies.
Require data availability statements; encourage deposition of de-identified datasets and code with persistent identifiers.

Outcomes

Corrections for honest errors that do not invalidate findings.
Retractions where results are unreliable or ethical approvals are invalid.
Expressions of concern while investigations are ongoing.

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.

Reviewer management checklist

Select at least two independent experts with non-overlapping expertise.
Screen for conflicts (recent coauthorship, shared affiliations, financial ties).
Provide structured review prompts (methods, statistics, ethics, clarity).
Set deadlines (typically 14–21 days) and send courteous reminders.
Adjudicate disagreements based on evidence; seek an additional review if needed.

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.

Decision types

Accept—limited language edits before production.
Minor revision—targeted changes; no new data required.
Major revision—substantial changes or added analyses.
Reject—out of scope, serious methodological flaws, or integrity concerns.

Appeal handling

Acknowledge receipt; assign to an independent senior Editor.
Ask authors for a concise, point-by-point rationale addressing key issues.
Record the outcome and rationale; communicate respectfully to all parties.

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.

Editorial prompts to authors

Provide repository links/DOIs for datasets and code, or explain access conditions.
Use reporting guidelines appropriate to study design (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE, CARE, SQUIRE).
Include trial registration details (registry and identifier) for interventional studies.
Use SI units, report exact p-values, and include effect sizes and uncertainty intervals where appropriate.

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.

Repository and indexer interoperability

Ensure Crossref deposits include relation types (isCorrectionOf, isRetractedBy, etc.).
Expose machine-readable license and identifier metadata on article pages.
Support repository deposit of the Version of Record (VoR) under CC BY 4.0.

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.

Complaints (editorial service)

Acknowledge receipt; provide a target response window.
Review the file and communications history; consult policies.
Respond with findings and any remedial steps; escalate when unresolved.

Allegations (misconduct/ethics)

Assess credibility; secure relevant evidence (data, images, approvals).
Contact authors for explanations; consult institutions when warranted.
Issue a notice (correction, expression of concern, retraction) if 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.

Templates (snippets)

Decision – [ASCR-YYYY-XXXX] “[Title]” Summary of reasons: • Methods: … • Results: … • Interpretation: … Next steps: • Please respond point-by-point and upload a tracked-changes file by [date]. Sincerely, [Editor Name]

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: [email protected] · Technical support: [email protected]