Peer Review Policy
The Editor in Chief is responsible for the final decision on every paper, regardless of the opinion of Reviewers or the recommendation of Associate Editors.
Annali Italiani di Chirurgia adopts a double-blind peer review process, ensuring the anonymity of both the author(s) and the reviewers. All submissions are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another relevant Editorial Board approved by the Editor-in-Chief to determine the scope suitability for the journal. Papers deemed appropriate are typically sent to at least two independent expert reviewers for an assessment of their scientific quality. Reviewers are selected based on various factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and prior experiences. For a reviewer to be chosen, they must not have published papers in the last 5 years with any of the manuscript's authors, belong to different institutions, and have no conflict of interest with the manuscript's content. After receiving recommendations from reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or another relevant Editorial Board approved by the Editor-in-Chief evaluates them and holds the final authority over acceptance, revision, or rejection. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript and the editor's decision is final. Editors do not participate in decisions about papers they have authored, those written by family members or colleagues, or papers related to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Such submissions follow the journal's standard procedures with peer review conducted independently of the relevant editor and their research groups.
Reviewers are reminded to treat the confidential information in these messages as such.
Peer Review Workflow
Manuscript Submission: All manuscripts will be preliminarily assessed by the editor to ensure they align with the journal's scope and standards. Only those papers that meet the journal's criteria and align with its objectives and scope will undergo peer review.
Anonymization: Before sending the manuscript for review, information about the author's identity will be removed or concealed. This is done to ensure that reviewers are unaware of the author's identity.
Assignment of Reviewers: The editor selects two or more experts in the field to review the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and knowledge relevant to the subject matter.
Peer Review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for its quality, originality, methodology, relevance, and other criteria specified by the journal. They provide feedback and make recommendations for revisions or improvements.
Author Revision: If revisions are recommended, the author may be asked to respond or make changes to the manuscript based on the feedback received. Generally, we allow up to two rounds of major revisions to avoid prolonged peer review, which may be frustrating for both authors and reviewers. Any further modifications required will follow the decision of the Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board member approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board member approved by the Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' comments, the revised manuscript, and other relevant factors to make the final decision on acceptance, rejection, or further revisions.
Author Notification: The author is informed of the editorial decision. If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the publication process. At this stage, the authors receive a proof invitation to check the manuscript again. Subsequently, the accepted manuscript is sent to the production team for conversion, which may include language editing, copy editing, and conversion to XML. If the manuscript is rejected, this decision may occur if the Editorial Board Member (Editor-in-Chief or another Editorial Board member approved by the Editor-in-Chief) feels that the work is not suitable for publication in its current form, even after revision. If authors have strong evidence that the decision on their paper was influenced by scientific misunderstanding or reviewer bias, they can send an email to the Editorial Office.
All submissions will adhere to journal standards, regardless of whether they are authored by editors, editorial board members, or their colleagues. The editorial process and confidentiality will be the same as for all other submissions. Editors or editorial board members submitting papers will not be involved in the decision-making process and will not have access to the submitted manuscripts. Peer review for their submissions will be conducted independently by external reviewers, with the content assigned to at least two independent external reviewers. All decisions will be made by editorial board members who do not have conflicts of interest with the authors.
If accepted for publication, authors must explicitly disclose a conflict of interest statement, using the following wording: "Given [his/her] role as [guest] editor [editor-in-chief], <editor's name> was not involved in the peer review of this article, and did not have access to information related to the peer review. Furthermore, editorial staff are prohibited from exploiting information obtained in the course of their work for personal gain.