For reviewers

INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS:

We have gathered the following materials to assist and guide you in your review process. We sincerely value the effort and time reviewers contribute to the peer review system.

All submissions to the Surgery (Khirurgiia) undergo a double-blind peer review by chosen experts. The primary goal of this review is to enhance the quality of the manuscripts that are ultimately published. As such, thorough, impartial, and evidence-based feedback is crucial for fair decisions regarding acceptance, revisions, or rejections of submissions.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on clarity, originality, and scientific contribution. They should also ensure the article complies with formatting requirements and verify the accuracy and currency of the references. We anticipate feedback on all facets related to research and publication ethics. It is essential to critique the science rather than the scientist and to avoid personal attacks on the author.

At the commencement of the review process, the Surgery (Khirurgiia) editorial team appoints at least two reviewers. Once feedback is received, the editorial team assesses it in conjunction with their evaluation to determine the manuscript's suitability for publication. A brief overview of the review process can be found in the flowchart below.

Privacy of the Review and Study:

Surgery (Khirurgiia) places significant importance on maintaining the confidentiality of the review process and implementing a double-blind review system. We expect reviewers to uphold the privacy of the studies and refrain from reproducing any scientific ideas in any form, including similar hypotheses or study designs, to prevent misunderstandings and ethical dilemmas. Reviewers should remain sensitive to all ethical issues and immediately report any confirmed or questionable ethical concerns to us.

 

Accepting or Declining Reviewer Invitations:

At least two peer reviewers will review every article type. Surgery (Khirurgiia) employs a double-blind peer review, meaning neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other's identities. The Surgery (Khirurgiia) will send an invitation via email to selected reviewers through the online submission system. At this time, reviewers can accept or decline the invitation. If reviewers are too busy or feel the submission is outside their area of expertise, they are encouraged to decline the invitation. If no response is received from the invited experts within a specified timeframe, we will retract the invitation and assign another reviewer to the submission. Your prompt response regarding the acceptance or decline of the invitation is vital for an efficient review process.

 

Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers should decline any submission where they have financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could compromise their professional judgment. Reviewers may also comment on the authors’ declared conflicts of interest. If there are suspicions that authors have not fully disclosed their financial, institutional, commercial, personal, ideological, or academic interests, this should be indicated in the reviewer report. Please contact the editor before accepting the review if you have any questions.

Reviewing Time:

Reviewers are expected to submit their feedback within 14 days of accepting the invitation. We kindly request that you submit your peer review comments through the Surgery (Khirurgiia) online editorial system and refrain from emailing them. Should you anticipate needing additional time, please contact the editorial office.

Technical Recommendations Regarding Methodology and Statistics:

Surgery (Khirurgiia) expects the review to focus on the following aspects:

  • The study’s objective must be clearly outlined in the introduction.
  • The methodology should be suitable to address the questions posed in the introduction.
  • All definitions, materials, and methods used should be clearly detailed for reproducibility.
  • Ethical approvals and necessary permissions must be obtained and noted in the methods section.
  • An appropriate statistical methodology aligned with the study's goals should be included, with the statistical methods/software detailed under the "statistical analysis" section.
  • The individual responsible for the statistical analysis should be acknowledged in the "author contributions" or "acknowledgments" section.
  • The conclusion should consider the level of evidence presented in the study.
  • The study's conclusion should align with its aims and be supported by the findings.

How to Write Your Review, visible for the Authors:

We respectfully ask that you structure your review comments to the authors by following these guidelines:

  • Avoid providing a final recommendation regarding publication suitability in comments to the authors.
  • Reviewers are encouraged to engage in constructive, clear, and effective scientific communication, offering detailed and helpful comments to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
  • Utilize polite and appropriate language throughout the review process. The journal aims to contribute to the literature and appreciates your valuable support.

Communication with the Editors:

Reviewers will submit their comments to the editorial team. Any concerns about the manuscript or the reviewer’s professional interests in the field may be communicated to the editor confidentially.

Decision Making:

Revisions: The editor may request additional manuscript revisions during the review process.

Final Decision: The editorial team ultimately makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ comments, suggestions, and the journal’s internal assessment. The editor-in-chief has the final say in the review process.