The peer review process is an essential aspect of maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publications. At Multidisciplinary Surgical Research Annals, we uphold rigorous standards for peer review to ensure that only high-quality research is disseminated to our readership. This document outlines our peer review policy, including the principles guiding our review process, the roles and responsibilities of reviewers and authors, and the procedures followed during peer review.
Quality Assurance: Peer review serves as a quality control mechanism to assess the validity, significance, and originality of submitted manuscripts.
Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from disclosing any information regarding the manuscript under review.
Impartiality: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are expected to provide unbiased, constructive feedback to authors, irrespective of their personal affiliations or conflicts of interest.
Timeliness: We strive to ensure prompt and efficient review processes to minimize delays in publication while maintaining the highest standards of quality.
Authors: Authors are responsible for submitting original research that adheres to ethical standards and complies with the journal's guidelines. They should provide accurate and complete information and respond promptly to any queries or requests for revisions from the editorial team or reviewers.
Reviewers: Reviewers are experts in their respective fields who volunteer their time and expertise to evaluate manuscripts. They are expected to critically evaluate the scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and significance of the research presented in the manuscript. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work and assist the editorial team in making informed decisions regarding publication.
Editorial Board: The editorial board oversees the peer review process and is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers, evaluating reviewer comments, and making final decisions on manuscript acceptance or rejection. Editorial board members ensure that the peer review process is conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the journal's standards and policies.
Submission: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their suitability for peer review and compliance with journal guidelines.
Reviewer Selection: The editorial team selects reviewers based on their expertise and knowledge relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.
Review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as scientific validity, methodology, originality, clarity of presentation, and significance of findings. They provide detailed comments and recommendations to the authors and the editorial team.
Decision: The editorial team considers reviewer comments and recommendations in making a decision on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection. Authors are notified of the editorial decision along with reviewer comments to guide revisions, if necessary.
Revision: Authors are given an opportunity to revise their manuscript based on reviewer feedback and submit a revised version for further evaluation.
Final Decision: The editorial team reassesses the revised manuscript and decides whether to accept it for publication, request further revisions, or reject it based on the extent to which reviewer concerns have been addressed.
