Peer Review Process
The Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research (ASCR; ISSN: 2576-9537) operates a rigorous, double-blind peer review. This page explains each stage—from editorial triage and reviewer selection to decisions, revisions, appeals, and post-publication updates—so authors and reviewers know what to expect and how to contribute effectively.
Overview
Peer review at ASCR is designed to assess novelty, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the clarity and usefulness of surgical research. We prioritize constructive feedback that improves the manuscript, even when the final decision is not to publish. Editorial decisions are independent of commercial interests and financial considerations, including Article Processing Charges (APCs) and waiver requests.
Key features
- Double-blind review: authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
- Minimum of two independent expert reviews; additional adjudication when needed.
- Structured review forms emphasizing study design, statistics, ethics, and transparency.
- Explicit decision categories with clear revision guidance.
- Documented integrity checks and post-publication update pathways.
From Submission to Decision: Typical Timeline
| Stage | What Happens | Your Role |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial triage | Scope fit, ethics checks (IRB/IACUC, consent, registration), file blinding verified; similarity screening | Authors: Provide separate Title Page and Blinded Manuscript; supply ethics docs. Editors: Record triage outcomes and requests. |
| Reviewer selection | Editors invite conflict-free experts with complementary methods/clinical expertise | Reviewers: Accept/decline promptly; declare conflicts; agree to confidentiality. |
| Review & assessment | Structured, evidence-based critiques emphasizing methods, statistics, and ethics | Reviewers: Submit constructive reports; use confidential notes for sensitive issues. |
| Editorial decision | Editors synthesize reviewer evidence and policy criteria | Editors: Communicate Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject with rationale. |
| Revisions | Authors respond point-by-point and upload tracked-changes file | Authors: Address all points; mark changes clearly; provide new analyses where needed. |
| Final checks | Integrity confirmation, license selection, metadata review, production handoff | Editors/Production: Confirm transparency statements, permissions, and figures. |
Timelines may vary by article type and reviewer availability. Communicate early if you need an extension or additional information.
Editorial Triage
Within the initial screening window, a Handling Editor reviews each submission for scope, ethics, and basic completeness before review invitations are sent. Triage ensures that reviewers’ time is well spent and that authors receive timely, actionable feedback.
Triage checklist (editors)
- Scope fit to surgical/clinical research and journal aims.
- Ethics: IRB/IACUC approvals, consent, and clinical trial registration (before enrollment for interventional trials).
- Integrity: similarity screening; preliminary image/data concerns noted for follow-up.
- Blinding: separate Title Page and Blinded Manuscript; scrubbed file metadata.
- Reporting: appropriate EQUATOR guideline indicated (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, etc.).
- Conflicts: authors’ disclosures present and coherent with funding statements.
Reviewer Selection & Conflicts
Editors choose reviewers who are methodologically strong, relevant to the topic, and free of conflicts. We avoid close collaborators of the authors, recent coauthors, and individuals from the same department or unit. Reviewers confirm availability, declare conflicts, and agree to confidentiality before accessing files.
Reviewer invitation (typical)
Subject: ASCR review invitation – “[Short Title]” Please accept or decline by [date]. We use double-blind review. If you accept, your structured form will cover methods, statistics, ethics, transparency, and a recommendation.
Conducting the Review
Reviews should be fair, evidence-led, and respectful. Avoid speculating about identities. Separate critical methodological issues from minor presentation edits. Use the confidential-to-editor box for sensitive concerns (e.g., suspected overlap, undisclosed conflicts).
Structured prompts (Review form)
- Study design and reproducibility; protocol deviations and registrations.
- Statistical appropriateness; effect sizes with 95% CIs; handling of missing data and multiplicity.
- Risk of bias and limitations; clinical relevance and patient-centered outcomes.
- Ethics and consent; data and image integrity; conflicts and funding transparency.
- Data availability and code; repository DOIs or controlled access statements.
- Overall recommendation and prioritized changes.
Decision Types & Rationale
Editors synthesize reviewer evidence and journal policy to reach a decision. Vote count is less important than the strength of arguments. Decision letters outline reasons and specify what is needed next.
| Decision | When used | What authors receive |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Methodologically sound; clarity sufficient; only light edits required | Copyediting notes and production schedule |
| Minor revision | Sound core methods; clarifications or small analyses needed | Specific, prioritized action list |
| Major revision | Fixable methodological or interpretive issues; additional analyses needed | Detailed guidance; possible re-review |
| Reject | Out of scope; unreliable methods or ethics; insufficient contribution | Constructive feedback and, where suitable, transfer suggestions |
Revisions & Point-by-Point Responses
Authors should respond to each reviewer comment in a separate document and upload a tracked-changes file. Where suggestions are not adopted, provide a brief rationale and, if appropriate, additional analyses to test sensitivity. Editors may seek re-review for major changes or unresolved concerns.
Response letter template (authors)
We thank the reviewers for constructive feedback. Below we respond point by point. For each item we specify actions taken and page/line references in the marked manuscript. Where suggestions were not adopted, we provide our rationale and any additional analyses.
Integrity Checks & Ethical Safeguards
Integrity is assessed at submission and before acceptance. ASCR uses similarity screening and may request original images/data where manipulation is suspected. Editors confirm human/animal ethics approvals and consent statements. For interventional trials, prospective registration is required; lack of registration must be explained and may affect editorial outcome.
Common integrity actions
- Request raw images and acquisition details for questioned figures.
- Disclose global adjustments; splice demarcations must be visible.
- Clarify ethics approvals and consent timing; verify registry identifiers.
- Check funding and competing interests against the study’s topic.
Possible outcomes
- Corrections of honest errors.
- Rejection where reliability is compromised.
- Post-publication notices (corrections, expressions of concern, retractions) if issues arise after publication.
Transparency, Data & Reproducibility
ASCR supports open and reproducible research. Authors should include Data Availability Statements, cite datasets and code with persistent identifiers, and provide exact p-values and effect sizes with uncertainty. Where data cannot be openly shared (e.g., patient-level clinical data), describe governance, de-identification, and how qualified researchers can request access.
Reporting guidelines by design
- CONSORT for randomized trials.
- PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
- STROBE for observational studies.
- STARD/TRIPOD for diagnostic/prognostic studies.
- ARRIVE for animal research; CARE for case reports; SQUIRE for QI/implementation.
Special Considerations
Preprints & Prior Dissemination
ASCR allows consideration of manuscripts previously shared as preprints. Preprints do not compromise double-blind review—authors and reviewers should avoid drawing attention to identity-revealing details. Authors should cite the preprint and ensure the manuscript reflects substantive updates following peer review.
Special Issues
Guest Editors must follow the same double-blind and conflict-of-interest procedures as core Editors. Any discounts or sponsorships linked to a Special Issue are handled by the publisher and never influence editorial decisions.
Clinical Images & Video
Identifiable content requires explicit consent for publication. When de-identification is incomplete, editors may request masking/cropping or removal of the figure. Captions must include appropriate credit lines and permissions for third-party content.
Appeals & Complaints
Authors may appeal decisions by providing a concise, evidence-based rationale that addresses key reviewer/editor points. Appeals are assigned to a senior Editor not involved in the original decision. Complaints about editorial service are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and publisher. All steps are recorded in the editorial history to ensure transparency and fairness.
Appeal template (authors)
Subject: Appeal – [ASCR-YYYY-XXXX] “[Title]” We respectfully appeal the [decision]. We address the following points with additional evidence/analyses… We confirm no new conflicts have arisen. We understand that an independent senior Editor will reassess the file.
Post-Publication Updates & the Scholarly Record
When new information affects a published article, ASCR issues citable updates—corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern—with their own DOIs and bidirectional links to the affected article. Article pages and PDFs display status indicators so readers see the current record. Metadata deposits ensure indexers and repositories receive timely updates.
Roles & Responsibilities at a Glance
Authors
- Submit blinded files and ethics documentation.
- Disclose conflicts and funding; provide transparent data statements.
- Respond point-by-point to reviews; mark changes clearly.
Reviewers
- Declare conflicts; protect confidentiality.
- Provide structured, evidence-based critiques with respectful tone.
- Use confidential channel for sensitive integrity concerns.
Editors
- Ensure double-blind integrity and conflict screening.
- Base decisions on evidence and policy, not reviewer votes alone.
- Coordinate integrity checks and post-publication updates as needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is double-blind review always possible?
We take reasonable steps to preserve blinding (separate files, scrubbed metadata, neutral language). If identities are inadvertently revealed, the Editor will mitigate bias (e.g., by redaction and/or additional review).
Do preprints or conference abstracts count as prior publication?
No. Preprints and abstracts may be considered; ensure any changes since posting are reflected in the submission and that the preprint is cited appropriately.
Can I suggest reviewers?
Authors may suggest qualified, conflict-free reviewers with justification. The Editor retains final selection to ensure balance and independence.
How many rounds of revision are typical?
Most manuscripts undergo one or two rounds. Additional rounds are rare and only used when essential issues remain.
Will APCs or waivers affect my decision?
No. Financial considerations, including waivers, are managed separately and have no bearing on editorial outcomes.
How are integrity concerns handled?
Editors follow established procedures: request clarifications or originals; consult institutions if necessary; and issue citable notices if reliability is affected.
Contact
Editorial queries and appeals: [email protected] · Technical support: [email protected]