Peer Review Policiesa
Surgical Case Reports operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.
Editorial and peer review process
Publication of research articles by Surgical Case Reports is dependent primarily on their scientific validity and coherence as judged by our external expert editors and/or peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution to the field. Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published work, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. Reviewers will also be asked to indicate how interesting and significant the research is. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board.
Reviewer selection, timing and suggestions
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field, reputation, recommendation by others, and/or previous experience as peer reviewers for the journal. Reviewers are asked to submit their first review within 2 weeks of accepting the invitation to review. Reviewers who anticipate any delays should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors may suggest reviewers that they would like included in or excluded from the peer review process. The relevant Editorial Board member may consider these suggestions but is under no obligation to follow them. The selection, invitation and assignment of peer reviewers is at the Editor in Chief’s sole discretion.
Acceptance criteria
If a manuscript satisfies the journal’s requirements and represents a significant contribution to the published literature, the Editorial Board member may recommend acceptance for publication in the journal.
Articles in the journal must be:
technically rigorous
original and educationally valuable
important to the field
within the subject area of the journal’s scope
well-constructed and written
of high interest to the journal’s audience
If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for acceptance or revision, the Editorial Board member may recommend rejection.
Editorial independence
Japan Surgical Society (JSS) has granted the journal’s Editorial Board complete and sole responsibility for all editorial decisions. JSS will not become involved in editorial decisions, except in cases of a fundamental breakdown of process.
Editorial decisions are based only on a manuscript’s scientific merit and are kept completely separate from the journal’s other interests. The authors’ ability to pay any publication charges has no bearing on whether a manuscript is accepted for publication in the journal.
Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision has been made in error may lodge an appeal with the Editorial Office. Appeals are only considered if the authors provide detailed evidence of a misunderstanding or mistake by a reviewer or editor. Appeals are considered carefully by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. The guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed where and when relevant.
Confidentiality in peer review
The journal maintains the confidentiality of all unpublished manuscripts. Editors and reviewers will not:
- disclose a reviewer’s identity unless the reviewer makes a reasonable request for such disclosure
- discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved with the manuscript or its peer review
- use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications
- use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.
In addition, reviewers will not reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript or involve anyone else in the review (for example, a post-doc or PhD student) without first receiving permission from the Editor.
Editor and reviewer conflicts of interest in peer review
A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence an editor or reviewer’s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.
Reviewers and members of the journal’s Editorial Board undertake to declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor or reviewer who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor or reviewer.
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members try to avoid conflicts of interest when inviting reviewers, but it is not always possible to identify potential bias.
Errata and retractions
The journal recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of published literature.
A published article that contains an error may be corrected through the publication of an Erratum. Errata describe errors that significantly affect the scientific integrity of a publication, the reputation of the authors, or the journal itself. Authors who wish to correct a published article should contact the editor who handled their manuscript or the Editorial Office with full details of the error(s) and their requested changes. In cases where co-authors disagree over a correction, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board or external peer reviewers for advice. If a Correction is published, any dissenting authors will be noted in the text.
A published article that contains invalid or unreliable results or conclusions, has been published elsewhere, or has infringed codes of conduct (covering research or publication ethics) may be retracted. Individuals who believe that a published article should be retracted are encouraged to contact the journal’s Editorial Office with full details of their concerns. The Editor-in-Chief will investigate further and contact the authors of the published article for their response. In cases where co-authors disagree over a retraction, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board or external peer reviewers for advice. If a Retraction is published, any dissenting authors will be noted in the text.
The decision to publish Errata or Retractions is made at the sole discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
Editors as authors in the journal
Any member of the journal’s Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief who is an author on a submitted manuscript is excluded from the peer review process. Within the journal’s online manuscript submission and tracking system, they will be able to see their manuscript as an author but not as an editor, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of peer review.
A manuscript authored by an editor of the journal is subject to the same high standards of peer review and editorial decision making as any manuscript considered by the journal.
Responding to potential ethical breaches
The journal will respond to allegations of ethical breaches by following its own policies and, where possible, the guidelines of COPE.