Author Guide for Surgery Proceedings
Use this complete submission framework to prepare methodologically strong, clinically relevant surgery manuscripts with faster editorial processing and cleaner peer-review cycles.
Choose the Correct Publication Format
Article type selection should match your objective, evidence strength, and expected practice relevance.
Journal of Surgery Proceedings accepts original research, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, case reports, case series, short communications, editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor. Select the category that best reflects your methodological depth and translational value. Incorrect article type selection often causes early desk revisions.
For prospective and retrospective clinical studies, define the study design clearly at the start of the abstract and introduction. For technical reports, describe procedural novelty, implementation context, and evidence boundary without overextending claims. For reviews, provide transparent literature strategy and scope logic.
Submissions involving multidisciplinary teams should describe how each discipline contributes to interpretation. Cross-disciplinary manuscripts often perform well when responsibilities are explicit and methodological choices are defensible for both surgical and analytical readers.
Required Manuscript Organization
Use a consistent scientific structure so reviewers can validate logic quickly and fairly.
| Section | What Must Be Included | Common Risk If Missing |
|---|---|---|
| Title and Abstract | Objective, design, key findings, translational relevance | Scope ambiguity at editorial triage |
| Methods | Design details, eligibility, protocol, analysis pathway | Major revision for reproducibility gaps |
| Results | Endpoint-linked findings with clear evidence mapping | Interpretation conflicts in peer review |
| Discussion | Clinical meaning, limitations, external validity boundaries | Overstated conclusions |
| Declarations | Ethics, consent, funding, conflicts, data availability | Administrative hold before review |
Keep terminology stable across all sections. Endpoint labels, cohort definitions, and intervention names should remain consistent between abstract, methods, results, visuals, and supplementary material.
Reproducibility and Analytical Governance
Methodological transparency is the primary driver of reviewer confidence.
Design Clarity
State prospective or retrospective status, setting, recruitment period, and eligibility logic.
Endpoint Lock
Define primary and secondary outcomes with clear measurement windows and thresholds.
Confounder Control
Describe adjustment strategy, subgroup planning, and missing-data handling before results.
Sensitivity Strategy
Show robustness checks and uncertainty interpretation for key conclusions.
When using machine learning, predictive modeling, or multicenter datasets, include validation strategy, performance metrics, and calibration logic. If surgical videos or procedural media are part of evidence presentation, ensure they map directly to manuscript claims and carry anonymization safeguards where required.
Statistical decisions should be declared in methods rather than introduced retrospectively in discussion. Transparent analytical governance substantially improves first-round review quality.
Production-Ready Evidence Packaging
Strong visual and supplementary discipline reduces technical delays and reviewer friction.
All figures should include complete legends, defined abbreviations, unit consistency, and direct relevance to stated endpoints. Table titles must clearly communicate analytical context and include denominator definitions where needed.
Supplementary files must be cited in sequence from the main text and named with stable, descriptive labels. Include protocol appendices, extended methods, and additional analyses only where they improve interpretability. Do not use supplemental files as a substitute for missing core methods.
If video assets are submitted, provide concise objective, procedural context, and key take-away statement in the manuscript body so reviewers can evaluate relevance quickly.
Mandatory Declarations and Integrity Controls
Complete policy declarations are required before peer review assignment.
Include ethics committee approval details, informed consent pathway, funding disclosures, conflict of interest statements, contributor roles, and data availability conditions in your initial submission package. Manuscripts missing these declarations are commonly delayed at technical screening.
For studies with controlled-access data, define request authority and criteria clearly. If consent was waived, provide approving body and justification language. Authorship changes after submission require written agreement from all contributing authors.
The journal applies routine integrity checks for similarity, reporting consistency, and metadata completeness. Clear and consistent documentation protects both authors and readers.
How to Submit and Track Progress
Use a controlled workflow from first upload through revision and final proofing.
Preflight Audit
Lock structure, methods, visuals, declarations, and supplementary references before upload.
Initial Submission
Use ManuscriptZone or simple submission form with complete author and compliance metadata.
Peer Review and Revision
Respond with line-referenced rebuttal and explicit action status for each reviewer point.
Proof and Release
Confirm author details, references, rights, and repository links before publication.
Final Author Control Checklist
Use this final control pass to improve decision quality and reduce avoidable revision cycles.
First, verify narrative coherence: title, abstract, results, and conclusion must point to one contribution statement with clear limitation boundaries. Second, verify evidence mapping: each major claim should trace to a defined figure, table, or supplementary item. Third, verify governance completeness: ethics, funding, conflicts, and data statements should match across manuscript text, forms, and cover letter.
For multicenter collaborations, assign a single readiness owner before submission. Central ownership reduces terminology drift, duplicate versions, and declaration mismatch. This role is especially important when coauthors work across institutions with different governance requirements and variable document standards.
Before final upload, run an independent internal review by someone not involved in drafting. Fresh internal reading reliably identifies unclear assumptions, missing denominator detail, and endpoint inconsistency that core authors may overlook. This low-cost quality control step often improves first-round review outcomes.
After acceptance, maintain response speed during production. Delays in proof approval, affiliation correction, figure permissions, or repository metadata can postpone publication despite completed peer review. A prepared corresponding author with decision authority significantly reduces post-acceptance lag.
For technical support related to formatting, declarations, or submission routing, contact [email protected] before upload and include manuscript type, provisional title, and question category.
High-Performance Author Execution Model
Use a staged quality model to reduce major revisions and accelerate publication outcomes.
Stage one is narrative control. Confirm that title, abstract, results, and conclusion communicate one coherent contribution statement. In surgical literature, fragmented framing is a frequent reason reviewers request substantial reframing even when methods are strong.
Stage two is evidence governance. Each claim should map to one traceable evidence object, and each visual should map to one defined endpoint. If readers cannot follow this chain quickly, review cycles lengthen and decision certainty decreases.
Stage three is declaration synchronization. Ethics, funding, conflict, authorship, and data statements must match across manuscript text, cover letter, and system metadata. Small inconsistencies can trigger technical holds before review begins.
Stage four is revision readiness. Prepare a response framework before reviewer reports arrive: numbered comment tracking, line-referenced change logging, and explicit rationale for accepted or declined recommendations. Teams that use structured rebuttals resolve revision rounds faster and with higher editorial confidence.
Stage five is production preparedness. Confirm affiliation formatting, rights permissions, repository links, and figure quality before final decision. Delays after acceptance often come from metadata and rights corrections, not scientific issues. Early control of these elements shortens time from acceptance to publication.
For multicenter teams, assign one quality owner with authority to freeze terminology and approve final files. Distributed ownership without final harmonization is one of the most common causes of avoidable correction loops.
Independent Internal Review Before Upload
A final internal gate materially improves first-round review outcomes.
Before submission, assign one internal reviewer who was not directly involved in drafting to evaluate clarity, evidence traceability, and compliance completeness. Independent internal review often identifies mismatched endpoint labels, unclear denominator definitions, and declaration inconsistencies that core authors no longer notice after repeated revision cycles.
Use a three-part control check: narrative consistency, evidence mapping, and declaration synchronization. Narrative consistency confirms that objectives, methods, findings, and conclusion remain logically aligned. Evidence mapping confirms that each major claim is directly supported by a figure, table, or appendix reference. Declaration synchronization confirms that ethics, funding, conflicts, authorship, and data statements match across all submission components.
If gaps are identified, resolve them before external submission instead of relying on reviewer discovery. This approach reduces major revision probability and improves editorial confidence in methodological discipline.
Final execution reminder: submit only after narrative, evidence, and compliance controls are all locked. Incomplete control at any one layer usually creates revision friction, while full control across all layers supports faster and more reliable publication outcomes.
Final check: ensure revision files, clean manuscript, and response letter use identical terminology and endpoint naming before upload.
Submit to Journal of Surgery Proceedings
Use your preferred submission route and start peer review with a complete, policy-ready manuscript package.
For support: [email protected]
