Reviewer's Responsibilities | Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research

Foundations of Responsible Review

Reviewers provide independent, expert assessments of a manuscript’s validity, clarity, and relevance. Your analysis should be rigorous and fair, focused on the work—not the authors’ identities or institutions. The purpose of review is to strengthen the scholarship and inform editorial decisions. Decisions at ASCR are independent of commercial interests and financial considerations; Article Processing Charges (APCs) and waiver requests are handled separately from editorial workflows.

Principles

Confidentiality: Treat all materials and discussions as confidential and do not share outside the journal system.
Integrity: Evaluate methods, statistics, and ethics; flag concerns with specific evidence.
Objectivity: Base judgments on data and logic, not prestige or personal preferences.
Civility: Use respectful, constructive language oriented toward improvement.
Timeliness: Accept only when you can meet the deadline; communicate early if timelines change.

Confidentiality & Data Protection

Manuscripts, reviews, and editorial communications are confidential. Do not share files, quote content in public, or use unpublished information for personal research or gain. Use only the journal’s secure systems for accessing and annotating files. External tools that retain data or use inputs for model training must not be used unless expressly approved by the journal and covered by appropriate agreements.

Delete any local copies after submission of your review; retain notes only within the journal system.
Do not upload text, figures, or tables to third-party services without permission.
If you wish to involve a trainee as a co-reviewer, obtain prior permission from the editor and ensure the trainee agrees to confidentiality.

Competence, Conflicts & Recusal

Accept assignments only when the topic matches your expertise and you can provide a thorough, unbiased assessment. If a conflict of interest (COI) exists or could reasonably be perceived—recent coauthorship with any author (typically within 36 months), shared grants or employment, same department or unit, personal relationships, financial interests, or adversarial relationships—decline the invitation or request reassignment.

COI self-check

Have you coauthored with any author within the past three years?
Do you share current or recent funding, employment, or advisory roles?
Are you in the same department or a supervisory relationship?
Do you have personal, competitive, or financial interests that could bias your judgment?

When to recuse

You cannot be objective due to relationships or rivalries.
You lack sufficient expertise or time to complete a quality review.
You recognize the work as part of an ongoing collaboration.

Structure & Focus of Your Report

Your review should help the editor understand whether the research claims are supported by appropriate methods and analyses and whether the work is communicated clearly and ethically. Organize comments under clear headings and prioritize issues that affect validity and interpretation.

Suggested headings

Summary: 2–4 sentences capturing research question, design, and main findings.
Major concerns: Validity, ethics, transparency, and integrity issues that must be addressed.
Methods & analysis: Design, statistics, effect sizes with 95% CIs, multiplicity, missing data, sensitivity analyses.
Results & interpretation: Robustness, clinical relevance, limitations, and generalizability.
Transparency: Trial registration, reporting guideline adherence (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, STARD, TRIPOD, ARRIVE, CARE, SQUIRE), data/code availability.
Presentation: Organization, clarity, figure/table quality, reference accuracy.
Recommendation: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject (with rationale).
Confidential comments to editor: Conflicts, suspected overlap/misconduct, identity-sensitive observations.

Ethics & Integrity Responsibilities

Reviewers are not investigators, but you are responsible for flagging credible concerns with specific evidence so editors can act. Examples include plagiarism or uncredited overlap, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or funding, lack of ethics approvals (IRB/IACUC) or consent, and unregistered clinical trials.

Integrity prompts

Identify passages that appear duplicated or paraphrased without citation; provide figure/table numbers or line references.
Ask for original, unprocessed images where image integrity is doubtful; look for splices or excessive adjustments.
Verify that trial registration precedes patient enrollment and that ethics approvals align with methods and timelines.
Check that funding and conflicts statements are present and plausible given the work.

Note: If you suspect serious misconduct, do not contact the authors. Describe the concern in the confidential comments to the editor and provide objective indicators (citations, figure references, DOIs, registry numbers).

Transparency, Data & Reproducibility Checks

Encourage authors to provide clear, specific Data Availability Statements and to cite datasets and code with persistent identifiers. Where data cannot be openly shared (e.g., sensitive clinical data), authors should describe de-identification, governance, and access conditions for qualified researchers.

Look for exact p-values, effect sizes with uncertainty, and justified analytic choices.
Encourage preregistration/protocol availability when appropriate; for systematic reviews, ask for protocol or PROSPERO registration.
Recommend repositories that are field-appropriate and support persistent identifiers and metadata quality.

Respectful Tone & Bias Mitigation

Maintain a professional, constructive tone that focuses on the work, not identities or affiliations. Be alert to prestige bias, geographic or language bias, and novelty bias. Provide evidence-based reasoning and suggest practical ways to address concerns.

Constructive phrasing

The primary outcome appears to have been modified post hoc. Please clarify whether outcomes were prespecified (protocol/registry) and provide sensitivity analyses; conclusions should reflect this uncertainty.

Language guidance

Avoid ad hominem remarks and identity-revealing speculation.
Distinguish validity concerns from writing quality; recommend language editing when science is sound.
Be precise: cite figure/table numbers and page/line locations where possible.

Timeliness & Communication

Respect authors’ time. If you cannot meet the deadline, inform the editor as early as possible. Decline promptly when you are unavailable and, if appropriate, suggest alternative qualified reviewers, including diverse and conflict-free early-career experts. Keep all communications within the editorial platform to preserve an audit trail.

Co-reviewing with Trainees

Co-reviewing can be an effective training activity, but confidentiality and transparency are essential. You must obtain prior permission from the editor before involving a trainee and identify the trainee in the confidential comments. The trainee must agree to confidentiality. Submit a single, consolidated review that reflects both contributors’ work.

Share educational materials and discuss review ethics with the trainee.
Ensure the trainee’s contributions are acknowledged within journal policy.
Do not share files or manuscript text beyond the approved participant(s).

Responsible Use of Tools

Tools can assist with grammar, reference checks, or statistics. However, do not upload confidential content to services that retain inputs or use them for training. Prefer publisher-provided or vetted tools. Your judgments must remain your own; automated suggestions are aids, not substitutes.

Do not enter author names, reviewer identities, or patient details into external tools.
Do not copy manuscript sections into public web services without explicit permission.
Retain notes and outputs inside the editorial platform whenever possible.

Citation, Reference & Permissions Checks

Where feasible, verify that key claims are supported by appropriate citations. If figures, tables, or images are reproduced from third parties, authors must provide credit lines and permissions consistent with the selected license. Encourage accurate reference formatting and inclusion of DOIs where available.

Recommendations & Rationale

ASCR uses four recommendation categories—Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, and Reject. Your recommendation should flow from the evidence you present in your review. Briefly prioritize the most important changes and explain why they matter for validity or clarity. Avoid proposing scope-expanding experiments that are not central to the claims.

Recommendation	When appropriate	Examples of next steps
Accept	Methods sound; results and conclusions aligned; minor language edits only	Clarify captions; small format fixes
Minor revision	Core validity intact; specific clarifications or minor analyses needed	Report exact p-values; add sensitivity analysis; improve figure labeling
Major revision	Fixable issues affecting validity or interpretation	Address selection bias; correct statistical model; provide missing ethics documentation
Reject	Out of scope; fundamental methodological flaws; unreliable or unethical research; insufficient contribution	Offer constructive feedback to guide future work or resubmission elsewhere

Examples & Scenarios

Scenario: Suspected duplicate publication

You recall a similar paper. Provide the citation or DOI in confidential comments and describe the overlap (e.g., sample, figures). The editor will investigate and contact authors as needed.

Scenario: Unregistered clinical trial

Trial registration appears missing or post hoc. Note the issue and request clarification and sensitivity analyses. The editor will evaluate per policy and community standards.

Scenario: Potentially identifiable image

Flag the figure and ask for evidence of explicit consent for publication or for de-identification/removal. Ensure captions include credit lines and permissions.

Scenario: Language barrier vs. scientific merit

The science is sound but prose is difficult. Recommend language editing and provide concrete suggestions; do not reject on presentation alone when validity is intact.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I cite or discuss the manuscript publicly?

No. Manuscripts under review are confidential and may not be cited, shared, or discussed outside the editorial process.

May I request additional experiments?

Only when necessary to address validity or essential interpretability. Avoid imposing new aims that extend beyond the manuscript’s central claims.

What if I realize a conflict after accepting?

Stop work and notify the editor immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned if needed.

Should I check raw data?

You may request clarifications or additional documentation when results or images seem inconsistent. Editors will coordinate any requests for original files.

How do preprints affect review?

Preprints are allowed. Keep the review focused on scientific content. Avoid identity-focused comments and preserve double-blind norms where possible.

Contact

Reviewer queries and integrity alerts: [email protected] · Technical support: [email protected]