Peer Review Policy

Surgical Research (SR) operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process, consistent with COPE's core peer review principles, to ensure the scientific validity, originality, and quality of all published content.

Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appointed Associate Editor for basic suitability — scope alignment, formatting compliance, and adherence to the journal's Author Guidelines. Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent, qualified peer reviewers with relevant expertise in general or specialized surgery, or the specific subject area of the submission.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Scientific soundness and methodological rigor
• Originality and contribution to the field of surgical research
• Clarity and quality of presentation, including surgical, radiographic, or histopathological data where applicable
• Appropriate use and citation of prior literature, consistent with the journal's Citation Policy
• Ethical compliance, including conflicts of interest and, where applicable, informed consent and ethical approval documentation in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki

Reviewer Anonymity

SR follows a double-blind review model: reviewer identities are withheld from authors, and author identities are withheld from reviewers wherever practically feasible, to reduce bias and protect the integrity of the review process, in line with ICMJE's recommendations on peer review.

Decision Process

Based on reviewer feedback, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor renders one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, in line with the journal's Editorial Process. Authors are provided with reviewer comments to guide any required revisions. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation before a final decision is made.

Timeliness

SR is committed to a timely review process and works to provide authors with an initial decision within a reasonable timeframe, recognizing that review duration may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability. Full step-by-step timing is detailed in the Peer Review Process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents, consistent with COPE's guidance on confidentiality in peer review. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and must not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for their own research without the express written consent of the author (see also GenAI Policy regarding confidentiality obligations when AI tools are involved).