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
Peer Review Process | Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Special Considerations

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.

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

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: editorial@clinsurgeryjournal.com · Technical support: support@clinsurgeryjournal.com