| Post date: 2018/04/28 |
About Peer Review:
The peer review process plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific research. It is a critical step in the publication of scholarly articles and helps maintain the integrity and credibility of scientific literature. This page provides an overview of the peer review process and its significance in the academic community. The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially all papers are assessed by an editorial committee consisting of 2 or more members of the editorial team. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.
Editorials and Letters may be accepted at this stage but in all other cases the decision is to reject the paper or to send it for peer review. Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Journal of Surgery and Trauma adopts double blind review, which means that reviewers and authors cannot identify each other’s information.
Peer review is a rigorous evaluation process in which experts in a particular field assess the quality, validity, and originality of research papers before they are published. It involves the impartial assessment of manuscripts by independent researchers who are knowledgeable about the subject matter. The primary goal of peer review is to ensure that only high-quality and reliable research gets published. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. Peer reviewer’s role is to advise editor to accept, revise, or reject individual manuscripts. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on reviewers' recommendation.
The peer review process plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific research. It is a critical step in the publication of scholarly articles and helps maintain the integrity and credibility of scientific literature. This page provides an overview of the peer review process and its significance in the academic community. The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially all papers are assessed by an editorial committee consisting of 2 or more members of the editorial team. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.
Editorials and Letters may be accepted at this stage but in all other cases the decision is to reject the paper or to send it for peer review. Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Journal of Surgery and Trauma adopts double blind review, which means that reviewers and authors cannot identify each other’s information.
Peer review is a rigorous evaluation process in which experts in a particular field assess the quality, validity, and originality of research papers before they are published. It involves the impartial assessment of manuscripts by independent researchers who are knowledgeable about the subject matter. The primary goal of peer review is to ensure that only high-quality and reliable research gets published. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. Peer reviewer’s role is to advise editor to accept, revise, or reject individual manuscripts. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on reviewers' recommendation.
Table: Standard Reporting Guidelines
| Type of study | Guideline |
| clinical trials | CONSORT |
| non-randomized controlled trials | TREND |
| observational | STROBE |
| systematic reviews and meta-analysis on clinical trials | PRISMA |
| meta-analysis of observational studies | MOOSE |
| diagnostic accuracy | STARD |
| qualitative research | COREQ |
| case report | CARE |
| quality improvement | SQUIRE |
| Others | See here… |
When the editor requests to review a manuscript, if review comments cannot be submitted within the 2 weeks of review period, please decline to review it or ask for extension of the review period. If there is no review comment within the 4 weeks from acceptance to review, the editorial office may replace the reviewer.
In your review, please consider the following aspects on the manuscript as far as they are applicable:
Reviewers’ Responsibilities:
- Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
- Providing all required information within established deadlines
- Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
- Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript you are asked to review
- Reporting possible research misconducts
- Suggesting alternative reviewers in case you cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
- Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
- Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
- Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow you identify the authors
- Not identifying yourself to authors
- Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
- Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
- Informing the editor if you find the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to your knowledge
- Writing review report in English only
- Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript
In your review, please consider the following aspects on the manuscript as far as they are applicable:
- Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied and originality.
- Adequacy of abstract (250-300 words) and keywords (3-5) that were set based on Mesh.
- Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate and need for statistical assessment).
- Are the methods used adequately described? Are they appropriate? Are the patients studied adequately described and their condition defined?
- Results relevant to problem posed? Well presented?
- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
- Relevance of discussion (Discussion should be organised just based on results.
- References up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
- Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles (up to 6 figures and tables).
- Ethical aspects (The Ethics Committee of … University of Medical Sciences approved the study (Ethical code: IR…...REC….). Written informed consent from all participants in the study, and they were assured that their personal information would remain confidential. Also, exercise therapy was carried out for the control group after the study.This trail was also registered at www…... ir (IRCT…..).
- Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing)
How to Become a Reviewer:
Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office. Anyone who wants to work voluntarily as a reviewer can contact the editor at https://jsurgery.bums.ac.ir/form_contact.php?&slct_pg_id=30&sid=1&slc_lang=en
Ethical Guideline for Reviewers:
1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest .
3. A reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript under review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.
4. In comments intended for the authors, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest .
3. A reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript under review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.
4. In comments intended for the authors, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
5. Even if we do not accept a paper, we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For this reason, please give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to decide on the paper and the authors to improve it.
View: 14612 Time(s) |
Print: 3248 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
Attribution-NoneCommercial CC BY-NC
