Reviewer Guidelines | Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research

Eligibility, Invitations & Conflicts

ASCR invites reviewers based on subject expertise, methodological competence, and a record of ethical conduct. If you receive an invitation, please accept or decline promptly so authors are not delayed. You must decline (or request reassignment) when a conflict of interest (COI) exists or could reasonably be perceived—for example, recent co-authorship with any author (typically within 36 months), shared funding or employment, institutional proximity (same department/unit), personal relationships, financial interests in related products, or adversarial relationships.

Before you accept

Confirm the manuscript is within your expertise and you can meet the deadline.
Complete a COI self-check; if in doubt, disclose and ask the editor.
Agree to confidentiality (see below) and to abide by double-blind procedures.
Refrain from seeking or sharing author identities; focus on methods and evidence.

Confidentiality

Treat manuscripts, data, and reviewer discussions as confidential.
Do not share files or text outside the journal system without written permission.
Do not upload confidential content to external services or tools that retain data.
Delete local copies after the review is complete; retain notes only within the system.

Timelines & Communication

ASCR aims to balance thoroughness with timeliness. If you need an extension, notify the editor early. If you must decline, suggest alternative qualified, conflict-free reviewers (including early-career scholars with appropriate expertise). Communicate respectfully and keep all correspondence within the editorial platform to preserve the audit trail.

Tip: When you accept, block time to read the methods carefully, check statistics and ethics statements, and draft a structured report (see below). This usually leads to faster, clearer decisions for authors.

How to Structure Your Review

Use a clear structure that separates a brief summary from specific, actionable comments. Keep tone professional and constructive. Distinguish critical issues affecting validity from minor presentation edits.

Suggested headings

Summary (2–4 sentences): What was studied, how, and main findings.
Major concerns (validity/ethics): Study design, bias, statistics, approvals/consent, data integrity.
Specific methods & analysis: Reproducibility, protocol deviations, effect sizes with 95% CIs, multiple testing.
Results & interpretation: Robustness, sensitivity analyses, clinical relevance, limitations.
Transparency: Data/code availability, trial registration, adherence to reporting guidelines.
Presentation: Organization, clarity, figures/tables, reference accuracy.
Recommendation: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject (with rationale).
Confidential comments to editor: Conflicts, ethics alerts, reviewer identity for co-reviewer if permitted.

Focus on evidence, cite specific passages or figure numbers, and—where possible—suggest solutions (e.g., additional analyses, clarifying text, improved figure labeling). Remove identity-revealing phrasing in your report to maintain double-blind norms.

Study-Type Checklists (apply as relevant)

Randomized & Controlled Trials

CONSORT followed; trial registration pre-enrollment (registry + identifier).
Randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding described.
Primary/secondary outcomes prespecified; deviations explained.
Sample size justification and power; effect sizes with 95% CIs.
Harms/adverse events and stopping rules reported; DSMB if applicable.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses

PRISMA followed; protocol registered (e.g., PROSPERO) or available.
Transparent search strategy; inclusion/exclusion criteria justified.
Risk-of-bias assessment; heterogeneity and small-study bias evaluated.
Appropriate models (fixed/random), sensitivity analyses, and publication bias checks.
Data and code for meta-analysis available where feasible.

Observational Studies

STROBE followed; clear design (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional).
Confounding and selection bias addressed; missing data handled transparently.
Model assumptions checked; multiplicity handled; effect sizes and uncertainty reported.
Data access and reuse conditions stated.

Diagnostic Accuracy & Prognostic Studies

STARD/TRIPOD followed; reference standards and thresholds justified.
Spectrum bias considered; calibration and discrimination reported.
Clinical utility and decision-analytic context discussed.

Surgical Technique & Devices

Clear indications/contraindications; learning curve and setting described.
Outcome measures (functional, complication rates, patient-reported outcomes) appropriate and time-bound.
Comparators or historical controls justified; IDEAL framework stage identified when applicable.
Images/video ethically obtained; identifiable content has explicit publication consent.

Case Reports/Series & Clinical Images

CARE followed; novelty and educational value explained.
De-identification verified; explicit consent for publication of identifiable materials.
Limitations acknowledged; avoid over-generalization.

Animal & Preclinical Studies

ARRIVE followed; randomization/blinding and humane endpoints described.
Power calculations; sex as a biological variable considered.
Translational relevance discussed; data shared where feasible.

Quality Improvement & Implementation

SQUIRE followed; context, intervention, measures, and PDSA cycles detailed.
Balancing measures, sustainability, and spread discussed.

Qualitative Research

Appropriate methodology (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology) justified.
Sampling/rigor (reflexivity, triangulation, saturation) described.
Reporting aligned with COREQ or suitable guideline.

Ethics, Integrity & Patient Privacy

Flag any concerns about plagiarism, redundant/overlapping publication, image manipulation, ethical approval (IRB/IACUC), trial registration, or consent for publication. Reviewers should not attempt to “police” authors; rather, identify evidence and alert the editor. ASCR follows community guidance for handling concerns and may request original images/data or documentation. For clinical images or audio/video that may identify a patient, explicit consent for publication is required; otherwise request de-identification or removal.

Integrity prompts for reviewers

Does the manuscript’s similarity check suggest uncredited overlap? If so, note specific passages.
Are image splices/adjustments transparently indicated? Request original files if doubtful.
Are approvals and consent documented and consistent with methods and timelines?
Do funding and competing interest statements match the study’s scope and potential influence?

Transparency, Data & Reproducibility

Encourage precise reporting and transparency that enable reuse: exact p-values, effect sizes with confidence intervals, underlying assumptions, and sensitivity analyses. Ask for a Data Availability Statement that is specific (repository/DOI or access conditions). For code-based analyses, request a versioned repository or supplementary file. When data cannot be openly shared (e.g., sensitive patient data), ask authors to describe governance and de-identification.

Professional Tone & Constructive Feedback

Be respectful and specific. Avoid ad hominem remarks or speculation about identities, affiliations, or intentions. Separate criticisms of method from criticisms of authors. When English‐language clarity is poor but the science is sound, recommend language edits rather than rejection on presentation alone.

Responsible Use of Tools & Co-reviewing

AI and external tools: Do not upload confidential content to services that retain data or train on user inputs. Use only publisher-approved tools where available. Your judgments must remain your own.
Co-reviewing with trainees: Permitted only with prior editor approval. Name the trainee in the confidential comments, ensure they agree to confidentiality, and submit a single, consolidated review.
Citations & references: Verify key citations; request corrections or additions where claims are unsupported.

Recommendations & Ratings

Recommendation	When appropriate	Typical next steps
Accept	Sound methods; clear reporting; only cosmetic edits remain.	Minor language/style edits before production.
Minor revision	Core methods are valid; modest clarifications/edits needed.	Targeted revisions; no new experiments required.
Major revision	Substantial methodological or analytical concerns that are fixable.	Authors address issues; editor may seek re-review.
Reject	Out of scope, serious flaws, unreliable or unethical research, or insufficient contribution.	Encourage constructive feedback to guide authors’ next steps.

Use the confidential comments box for sensitive notes to the editor (e.g., suspected conflicts, duplicate submission, or integrity alerts). Do not include inflammatory or identity-revealing remarks anywhere.

Templates & Phrases

Constructive phrasing

Major concern – outcomes not prespecified: The primary outcome appears to have been defined after data inspection. Please clarify whether outcomes were prespecified (trial registry/protocol) and, if not, provide sensitivity analyses and qualify conclusions accordingly.

Data availability: To enable verification and reuse, please provide a repository link/DOI for de-identified data and analysis code, or specify controlled access conditions and a contact point.

Integrity prompts

Image provenance: Please upload original, unprocessed image files for Figures X–Y, with acquisition metadata. If splicing was performed, include visible demarcations and describe adjustments in Methods.

Consent for identifiable materials: Figure Z shows potentially identifiable features. Please confirm that explicit consent for publication was obtained, or replace with de-identified imagery.

Equity, Inclusion & Bias Mitigation

Be mindful of biases that can arise from prestige, geography, language, or topic novelty. Evaluate the work on its scientific merits. When suggesting reviewers (if asked), recommend a diverse, conflict-free pool with complementary expertise. Avoid language that disparages identities, institutions, or regions.

Frequently Asked Questions

How quickly should I respond to an invitation?

Within a few days. If you cannot review, please decline promptly and suggest alternatives.

May I cite the manuscript before publication?

No. Manuscripts under review are confidential and may not be cited or shared.

Can I request additional experiments?

Request only what is necessary to address validity or essential interpretability. Avoid imposing scope creep that is not central to the study’s claims.

What if English quality is poor?

Focus on scientific soundness. Recommend language editing rather than rejecting for presentation alone.

Is it acceptable to consult a colleague?

Only with prior editor permission and with confidentiality assured (e.g., an approved co-reviewer/trainee). Disclose any assistance in the confidential comments.

How do I handle suspected plagiarism or duplicate submission?

Describe the concern and provide evidence (e.g., similar passages, figures). Do not contact the authors directly; alert the editor via the confidential channel.

What if I realize a conflict after accepting?

Stop work and inform the editor immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned.

Contact

Reviewer queries and integrity alerts: editorial@clinsurgeryjournal.com · Technical support: support@clinsurgeryjournal.com