This peer review process applies to Annals of Surgical Intelligence & Practice and is followed consistently for all manuscripts submitted to this journal. The peer review is the foundation upon which scientific quality, transparency, and integrity are built. The Journal mission is to ensure that every article we publish represents credible, ethically conducted, and intellectually rigorous research. To achieve this, journal peer review system combines internationally recognized editorial standards with carefully governed, responsible use of artificial intelligence as a decision-support layer—not a decision maker.

The journal approach is grounded in the principles of fairness, confidentiality, independence, accountability, and scientific merit.

1. Review Model

Every research article submitted to the journal undergoes a double-blind peer review process, where neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. This structure is designed to eliminate bias arising from institution, gender, geography, or seniority.

A minimum of two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript. When a study requires additional expertise—such as advanced statistical methods, artificial intelligence methodologies, or specialized imaging—the journal editors may involve additional methodological or technical reviewers.

2. Initial Editorial Screening (Pre-Review Stage)

Every manuscript begins with an editorial triage, during which the handling editor assesses whether the submission aligns with the journal’s scope and whether the basic scientific and ethical criteria are met.

At this stage, we verify:

• That ethical approvals are in place (IRB/IEC approval for human research, consent requirements, animal welfare standards).
• Compliance with international reporting guidelines relevant to the study type (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, STARD, CARE, ARRIVE, TRIPOD, etc.).
• Whether the manuscript contains complete declarations for conflicts of interest, funding, and authorship responsibilities.
• The suitability and originality of the work in relation to the journal’s mission.

Alongside human evaluation, the journal uses AI-assisted integrity checks that can highlight text similarity, potential image manipulation, reference anomalies, and inconsistent numerical data. These systems serve only as editorial support tools; editorial decisions remain entirely human-driven.

If a manuscript is clearly unsuitable—due to scope mismatch, absence of ethical approvals, fundamental methodological flaws, or lack of scientific merit—the editor may issue a desk rejection, accompanied by a respectful explanation so authors can submit elsewhere without delay.

3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Annals of Surgical Intelligence & Practice selects reviewers based on their subject matter expertise, publication history, methodological proficiency, and absence of conflicts of interest. We prioritize reviewers who can provide balanced, constructive, and evidence-driven insights.

The journal editors rely on a combination of literature searches, editorial board recommendations, and international researcher networks to identify professionals capable of evaluating the manuscript effectively.

Reviewers must acknowledge confidentiality boundaries and confirm they have no competing interests that could influence their judgment before undertaking a review.

4. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific integrity of the journal. They are expected to evaluate:

• The novelty and relevance of the research question.
• The appropriateness of the study design, methodology, and statistical analysis.
• The clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the reporting.
• The credibility of the results, including internal consistency, analytical rigor, and adequacy of controls.
• Whether conclusions are justified by the evidence presented.
• Compliance with ethical and safety standards.

For submissions involving artificial intelligence or machine learning, reviewers are specifically asked to comment on dataset transparency, potential bias, fairness, external validation, and clinical or real-world applicability.

Reviewers must treat the manuscript as strictly confidential. They may not use, share, or discuss the work outside the review process.

If reviewers use AI tools to assist with language clarity or structural assessment, they must not upload confidential content into any external system and must disclose their use of such tools in their confidential comments to the editor.

5. Evaluation Criteria and Decision Process

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated Associate Editor.

While the journal may add field-specific criteria, reviewers are generally asked to comment on whether:

• The work is original and meaningful
  • Does it address a clear knowledge gap or clinical/technical need?
• Methods are appropriate and transparent
  • Study design, sample size, statistics, AI models, and datasets are suitable, clearly described, and reproducible.
• Data and analyses are trustworthy
  • Results are internally consistent, adequately controlled, and supported by the methodology used.
• Conclusions are reasonable
  • Claims are proportionate to the data and appropriately acknowledge limitations.
• Ethics, equity, and patient safety are respected
  • Appropriate approvals, consent, and safeguards are in place.
  • For AI-related work, reviewers consider bias, generalizability, and risk of harm.
• Presentation is clear and useful
  • The manuscript is well structured and written clearly enough to be understood and acted upon by its intended audience (clinicians, scientists, policy-makers, etc.).

After reviews are received:

• Synthesis by the handling editor
  • The editor considers all reviewer comments, AI-flagged issues, and the journal’s priorities.
  • Reviewers’ recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) are advisory; the final decision rests with the editor-in-chief or delegated associate editor.
• Possible decisions
  • Accept (sometimes with minor editorial changes)
  • Minor revision (limited clarifications or small changes)
  • Major revision (substantial methodological, analytical, or interpretive changes)
  • Reject (not suitable or insufficiently sound for the journal)
• Revisions and resubmission
  • Authors receive consolidated comments and are asked to submit:
    • A revised manuscript
    • A detailed response-to-reviewers document, explaining how each point was addressed or why not.
  • Revised versions may be returned to some or all reviewers, depending on the extent of changes.
• Appeals
  • Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error or misunderstanding may submit an appeal outlining their reasons.
  • Appeals are evaluated by an editor not involved in the original decision, where feasible.

6. Provenance and Transparency Statements

To increase clarity and trust:

• Articles may include a “Provenance & Peer Review” statement indicating:
  • Whether the article was commissioned or unsolicited.
  • Whether it was externally peer reviewed, fast-tracked, or handled via an alternative pathway.
• For journal implementing transparent peer review, anonymized reviewer reports and author responses may be published alongside the article (with reviewers’ permission where required).

7. Handling of Submissions from Editors and Board Members

To avoid conflicts of interest and maintain impartiality:

• Manuscripts authored by members of the editorial board, editors-in-chief, or guest editors:
  • Are assigned to independent editors who are not collaborators, institutional colleagues, or close associates.
  • Undergo the same external peer review as any other article.
  • The involved editor has no role in reviewer selection, editorial decisions, or handling of their own paper.
• For special issues or thematic series:
  • Guest editors curate content but are recused from the peer-review process for manuscripts where they could have a conflict (e.g., their own articles or those of close collaborators).

8. Timelines

Annals of Surgical Intelligence & Practice strives for prompt yet rigorous evaluation:

• Initial editorial screening is generally completed within 1–2 weeks.
• First decisions after external review typically occur within 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript length.
• Following acceptance, articles are processed and published online (ahead of print) within 2–4 weeks.

These timeframes are targets and may vary depending on the complexity of the submission.

9. Acknowledgement of Reviewers

Annals of Surgical Intelligence & Practice values its reviewers and recognizes their essential contribution to scientific progress. Reviewers may receive:

• Annual acknowledgment lists (optional)
• Certificates of reviewing
• Eligibility for “Outstanding Reviewer” recognition
• Credit via reviewer-tracking platforms where available and ethically suitable

Where compatible with privacy and local regulations, Annals of Surgical Intelligence & Practice may integrate with external services that document review activity (e.g., reviewer-credit platforms), enabling reviewers to receive professional recognition for their contributions.

10. Additional Review Safeguards and Methodological Considerations

While grounded in established best practices, Annals of Surgical Intelligence & Practice adds several distinct elements:

• AI-aware, not AI-dependent
  • AI is used only as a decision-support layer (plagiarism checks, reporting-guideline prompts, anomaly detection)—never as a substitute for human editorial or reviewer judgment.
• Methodologically sensitive to AI research
  • For AI/ML manuscripts, we emphasize:
    • Dataset transparency and bias assessment
    • External validation and robustness
    • Clinical relevance and harm analysis
    • Clear separation between exploratory and deployable models
• Journal-consistent review philosophy
  • Whether submissions focus on surgery, surgical innovation, biomedical engineering, or AI-enabled clinical practice, authors can expect a coherent and consistent review approach within the journal.
• Author-centric communication
  • Decision letters aim to be clear, respectful, and actionable, even when the decision is negative. The journal goal is that authors feel the review improved their work, regardless of outcome.