Reviewer Guidelines and Peer Review Process

With a strong commitment to advancing scientific knowledge, our journal evaluates submissions through a rigorous peer-review process, incorporating a "double-blind" system to ensure impartiality and fairness. This process helps maintain the integrity and high standards of the journal, supporting scientific development, and fostering knowledge exchange across a wide range of disciplines.

Scope of the Journal

This journal publishes a variety of scientific works, including; clinical and surgical retrospective and prospective studies, experimental research, comprehensive reviews, case reports, editorial comments and discussions, letters to the editor and scientific letters, innovative surgical techniques, differential diagnoses and original viewpoints, “what is your diagnosis?” articles, book evaluations, questions and answers, analysis of current issues shaping the scientific agenda

The Peer Review Process

Manuscript Assignment

Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an editor, who selects at least two expert reviewers to evaluate the work. The double-blind review system ensures that the identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential.

Reviewer Invitation

The reviewers receive an email invitation to evaluate this manuscript. Within one week, reviewers must decide whether the topic of the manuscript aligns with their expertise and the scope of the journal. They can accept or decline invitations by responding to the journal system. After one week, editors may proceed based on their availability.

Double-Blind Review

Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure unbiased evaluation. The reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, scientific validity, clarity, and relevance.

Review Timeline

• Reviewers have two weeks to complete their evaluations and submit their feedback.
• After two weeks, the editors are not obligated to consider delayed feedback.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team decide whether to accept, revise or reject the manuscript. The authors are informed promptly and transparently regarding this decision.

Revisions and Final Approval

If revisions are required, the authors will be given the opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may have undergone additional review before final acceptance.

Final Decision

While reviewers provide essential insights, the final decision regarding the manuscript's acceptance, rejection, or revision lies solely with the editor. The editor considers the reviewers' recommendations, but their authority is decisive in ensuring that the journal’s standards are upheld.

Reviewer Responsibilities

1. Objective Assessment: Provides an independent, unbiased, and scientifically valid critique of the manuscript.
2. Confidentiality: Treat all details of the manuscript and review process as confidential. Sharing of manuscript information for personal or professional use is strictly prohibited.
3. Conflict of Interest: The editor is notified of any potential conflicts of interest, including financial, institutional, counseling, or other relationships, before accepting the assignment. If no conflicts exist, this must be explicitly declared.
4. Constructive feedback: Offers clear, respectful, and constructive remarks. Offensive or unprofessional comments were unacceptable. Criticism should focus on the content, methodology, and scientific rigour of the manuscript.
5. Recommendations: Provide a recommendation to the editor regarding acceptance, rejection, or the need for revision supported by scientific justifications.