Surgery, Gastroenterology and Oncology

Peer-Review Process

All submissions to the Surgery, Gastroenterology and Oncology journal are made online via the Submit Article and Peer Review System app on the journal's website. All submissions are first checked for completeness and adherence to SGOO submission guidelines by the editorial staffprior to being sent for assessment. Every article is evaluated by 2 reviewers, with expertise on the topic, each of whom is given 25 working days to critically appraise the manuscript and send their appraisals to the Editors. The reviewers' comments are included in the letter that is sent to the corresponding author. For manuscripts invited for resubmission, the review process consists of resending the amended manuscript to the same peer reviewers for reassessment, and than the Editors make a decision. If original reviwers are not available, refuse the reassignnment, or disagree on the assessment, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer for evlation prior to the editorial decision.

Upon evaluation, the reviewers are required to grade the manuscripts as:
A - acceptable in current form;
B - acceptable after minor revisions;
C - major revisions;
D - reject

The manuscript reviews are evaluated by the editorial board, which makes the final decision based on the peer-reviewers reports, as well as the editors opinions and recommendations. The editor-in-chief retains the authority to make the final decision on whether the manuscript will be accepted for publication in Surgery, Gastroenterology and Oncology.

PEER REVIEW TYPE

The review method used for all manuscriptssubmitted toSurgery, Gastroenterology and Oncology is Single Blind: the identities of the authors are known to the reviewers, but the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors. For the manuscripts received from the Surgery, Gastroenterology and Oncologyeditorial board members, we use the Double Blind method: the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are anonymyzed during the evaluation process by the editorial staff.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS

Confidentiality

Reviewers will observe strict confidentiality regarding both the content of the manuscripts they receive as well as thecommunications with the Editorial Board. The Reviewers will under no circumstances send a manuscript or part of a manuscript to a third party. They will not attempt to contact the Authors and are strictly prohibited to discuss any aspect of the reviewing process directly with the Authors. The manuscripts cannot be cited before publication as „in press” without the written consent of the Editorial Board. The Reviewers will refuse reviewing any manuscript with potential conflict of interest related to academic, economic or personal relationship with the Authors. The Reviewers will disclose the aforementioned reasons in the rationale for refusing to review a certain manuscript.

Guidelinesfor Reviewers

General comments will involve all of the following topics:
1. Importance, impact and originality of study;
2. Clarity of presenting the scientific content;
3. Ethical aspects which may preclude publishing the article.

Specific comments will include all the following topics:

Title: concise and illustrative for the content of the article.
Abstract: should clearly and concisely present general information about the aim of the study (Aim and Objectives), the material and methods that were employed (case control/cohort study, basic research, meta-analysis), most significant results and main conclusions. Importantly, authors are expected to highlight the novel aspects of the study.
Introduction: specifically mentions the reason why a certain study was undertaken and briefly lays out the present state of affairs in the studied domain. Should not engage in a literature review.
Material and methods: selection criteria of studied participants and controls, diagnostic criteria, clinical data gathering, number of observations (for clinical studies) / thorough description of animal studies (for basic research contributions), statistical methods and laboratory measurements should all be rigorously assessed for adequacy to the chosen type of study. Protocols for new methods should be described in detail. If materials, methods, and protocols are already well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail. However, the manuscript should include sufficient information to be understood independently.
Results: major findings of the study should be presented in graphic form if practicable. Minor details should not be illustrated if their message is conveyed adequately by simple descriptive text. The results should deliver evidence of experimental data which can lead to solid scientific conclusions. The studied cohort as well as the statistical methods employed should be adequate to the type of clinical/basic study chosen by the authors.
Discussion: novel aspects revealed by the study and their potential clinical impact should be outlined; comprehensive analyses capable of generating valuable conclusions should be presented in this section.
Tables and figures: all of the tables and figures should be essential for the overall content of the manuscript.
Bibliography: adequate and relevant citations complying with the Instructions for Authors section on the Surgery, Gastroenterology and Oncology website.

Appraisal of the English language employed for writing the article

A - pathway on the journal - No modifications needed;
B - Requires minor syntax and stylistic adjustments;
C - Requires major modifications in spelling, grammar, topic and syntax;
D - Contains incomprehensible fragments which necessitate retranslation.

Manuscript grading

The reviewers are expected to classify the manuscript in one of the following categories
A - Very informative and clearly presented content;
B - Reasonably informative and intelligibly presented content;
C - Acceptable in terms of novelty of research;
D - Low quality of scientific methods employed, no interest in terms of novelty of information.

Final decision

A - Accepted;
B - Accepted pending on minor revisions;
C - Accepted pending on major revisions;
D - Not accepted for publication;

Reasons for not accepting a manuscript for publication

If the Reviewer decides to grade a manuscript with either C or D, they are expected to specify the main reasons for rejecting the manuscript for publication, or, conversely, the certain modifications which would render the amended manuscript acceptable for publication in the Surgery, Gastroenterology and Oncology journal.
A manuscript can be rejected for publication in any of the following situations:
i. the scientific content is not congruent with the domain of the journal;
ii. it contains already published data with minimal additional data
iii. It lacks supporting data for the conclusions of the study.