Home > Riviste > Minerva Surgery > Peer-Review policy

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Opzioni di pubblicazione
eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

MINERVA SURGERY

Rivista ibrida

Pubblicazione segnalata su: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Scopus
Impact Factor 1.060

Bimestrale

pISSN 2724-5691

eISSN 2724-5438

 

PEER-REVIEW POLICY

All research articles published in Edizioni Minerva Medica journals undergo peer review. Edizioni Minerva Medica carefully supervises the entire process at every stage and makes sure that all actors in the process work effectively towards the achievement of timely publication.

The peer review process is fully documented and recorded at every stage and guarantees the accuracy and truthfulness of the scientific information published. The Publisher guarantees ethical and quality standards will be complied with by the various actors involved in the process (authors, reviewers, editors, societies).

All manuscripts submitted to Minerva Surgery are selected for publication on the basis of merit and appropriateness. All manuscripts are submitted to an initial editorial check to review them for completion and only then sent for assessment by the Chief Editor.

To read more about general duties and responsibilities of the Publisher go to Publication ethics

Type of peer review

The journal Minerva Surgery employs the single-blind peer review system, in which the author does not know who the reviewers are.

Editor’s initial manuscript evaluation

The Chief Editor first evaluates all submitted manuscripts. Among the Editor’s duties, he/she should initially monitor submitted material to identify plagiarism, fraudulent data and overlapping content with the help of the plagiarism tool iThenticate, incorporated in the online submission system. Manuscripts may be accepted at this stage although it is rare. Rejections occur at this point because manuscripts are insufficiently original, are seriously flawed scientifically, their grammar or English is poor or they are outside the scope of the journal. For those that meet the minimum criteria, the Chief Editor will assign each submission to an adequate number of expert reviewers contemporaneously.

Editors are responsible for rejecting/accepting an article and should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept. Editors are expected to enlist at least two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research. It is recognized that in some rare cases, it is extremely difficult to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision may be made on the basis of only one peer review.

To read more about the general duties and responsibilities of the Editors go to Publication ethics

How the reviewers are selected

The judicious selection of reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, together with the efficient management of the peer review process, ensures that a publication will be of high quality and therefore of value to the scientific community. Peer reviewer selection is essential to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, conflict of interest and previous performance. As Minerva Surgery reviewers’ database is constantly being updated, the journal welcomes suggestions for reviewers from the authors, although such recommendations are not necessarily acted upon.

Evaluation by reviewers

Reviewers should contribute to the decision-making process, and assist in improving the quality of published papers by reviewing the manuscript objectively and accurately, in a timely manner.

They should only agree to review manuscripts on subjects for which they have the expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author.

Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders and should alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.

Peer reviews should provide constructive critical assessments of the authors’ work. To this end reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is original and methodologically sound, whether its results are clearly presented and support the conclusions, whether it correctly and exhaustively references previous relevant work, whether it follows appropriate ethical guidelines, especially in matters of plagiarism, and whether it adds clearly to the knowledge and development of the field. Linguistic revision is not part of the peer review process, but it is recommended that reviewers should suggest linguistic and stylistic corrections to the manuscript.

To read more about general duties and responsibilities of Reviewers go to Publication ethics

Peer reviewer recognition

The journal Minerva Surgery the invaluable service performed by peer reviewers and offers them the opportunity to credit their Publons profiles with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the online submission system at the time of review submission.

Editor’s decision

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. Should the reviewers’ comments contradict one another or should a review be unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion (Section Editor) may be sought. The Chief Editor’s decision will be sent to authors with the reviewers’ recommendations. As a rule, revised manuscripts are sent by the Chief Editor to the initial reviewers for checking; these may then request further revision.

Reviewers and Section Editors advise the Chief Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

inizio pagina