Guidelines for Handling Editors
Use consistent evidence-based decision standards for surgery manuscripts across all article categories.
Core Decision Expectations
Editors should prioritize methodological quality, clarity of evidence, and clinical relevance.
Decision letters should identify high-impact revisions first and distinguish mandatory corrections from optional improvements. Where reviewer recommendations diverge, editors should adjudicate based on evidence strength and reporting quality, not reviewer tone or volume.
Escalate complex integrity or policy cases with clear documentation to the editorial office at [email protected].
Write Actionable Decisions
High-quality editorial communication reduces revision cycles.
Use section-linked, specific comments and avoid broad non-actionable feedback. Clear decision logic helps authors respond effectively and improves second-round efficiency for reviewers and editors.
How Editors Improve Review Efficiency
Precise decision communication reduces friction for both authors and reviewers.
Editors should structure recommendations by impact: critical validity issues first, then high-value improvements, then optional refinements. This hierarchy helps authors focus effort where it matters most and improves revision quality in a single cycle.
When reviewer comments conflict, adjudication should identify the underlying methodological question and request targeted clarification instead of broad rewrites. Focused adjudication shortens turnaround and protects reviewer goodwill.
Document final reasoning in concise evidence-linked language so decisions remain defensible and transparent.
Resolve Reviewer Divergence Efficiently
Targeted adjudication improves decision quality and turnaround speed.
When reviewer recommendations conflict, editors should isolate the methodological core of disagreement and request focused clarification. Broad rewrite requests should be avoided unless validity is fundamentally compromised. Focused adjudication reduces author burden and improves second-round review quality.
Decision letters should also summarize why requested actions are necessary for acceptance readiness.
Editors should also verify that requested revisions are proportional to manuscript potential and evidence gaps. Proportional guidance improves author compliance, preserves reviewer efficiency, and supports timely final decisions.
Where uncertainty remains after revision, request focused clarification rather than broad redevelopment.
Editors should close each decision letter with a concise readiness summary that states required action for acceptance, optional refinements, and expected resubmission format.
Concise readiness summaries at decision close reduce unnecessary second-round ambiguity for all parties.
Clear closure improves revision focus.
Precision in closure language improves compliance.
This improves reviewer alignment.
This improves final decision precision.
Support Consistent Editorial Quality
Apply these guidelines for fair and efficient manuscript handling.
For support: [email protected]
