Journal of Surgical Radiology

ISSN (Print): 2156-213X

ISSN (Online): 2156-4566

Website: https://journalsurgrad.com

The Journal of Surgical Radiology relies on expert peer reviewers to ensure the scientific quality, accuracy, and integrity of published research. These guidelines outline the responsibilities and expectations of reviewers.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations
• Assess the scientific merit, originality, and relevance of submissions
• Help editors make informed editorial decisions
• Contribute to improving manuscript quality

Peer review is a critical service to the academic community.

2. Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers should confirm that:

• The manuscript falls within their area of expertise
• There is no conflict of interest (financial, institutional, or personal)
• They can complete the review within the requested timeframe

If unable to review, reviewers should promptly decline and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

3. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

• Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
• Not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others
• Not use unpublished information for personal research or advantage

Confidentiality must be maintained before and after the review process.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should be alert to:

• Plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation
• Ethical concerns in human or animal research
• Inappropriate authorship or undisclosed conflicts of interest

Any concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts based on:

1. a) Scientific Quality

• Clarity of research objectives
• Appropriateness of study design and methodology
• Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation

1. b) Clinical and Academic Relevance

• Relevance to surgical radiology practice
• Contribution to existing knowledge

1. c) Presentation

• Organization and clarity of the manuscript
• Quality of figures, tables, and imaging
• Adequacy of references

6. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers should provide:

• General comments summarizing the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses
• Specific comments with numbered or section-wise suggestions
• Clear recommendations for improvement

Comments should be professional, respectful, and free from personal criticism.

7. Recommendation to Editors

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Final editorial decisions are made by the editors.

8. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to external AI tools or third-party platforms that could compromise confidentiality. AI tools may only be used in compliance with journal policy and ethical standards.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

• Submit reviews within the agreed deadline
• Inform the editor promptly if delays are unavoidable

Timely reviews ensure efficient editorial processing.

10. Acknowledgement of Reviewers

The journal may periodically acknowledge reviewers for their contributions, while maintaining confidentiality unless explicit consent is given.

11. Reviewer Misconduct

Failure to follow these guidelines may result in:

• Removal from the reviewer database
• Reporting to affiliated institutions in cases of serious ethical breach

12. Contact Information

For questions or concerns regarding the review process, please contact:

Editorial Office – Journal of Surgical Radiology

Email: editor@journalsurgrad.com

Email: info@journalsurgrad.com