Rigorous, multidisciplinary, and fast
We recognize that artificial intelligence evolves much faster than traditional clinical research. Our process is designed to be rigorous and highly efficient — ensuring practice-changing innovations reach the surgical community without unnecessary delay.
A Clinical Reviewer
A practicing surgeon or medical expert who evaluates the clinical utility, safety, workflow integration, and physiological relevance of the research.
A Technical Reviewer
A data scientist, machine learning engineer, or biomedical researcher who evaluates the algorithmic architecture, dataset integrity, statistical validation, and bias mitigation.
1. Multidisciplinary Evaluation
Because our journal lives at the intersection of medicine and computer science, single-domain review is insufficient. Every manuscript passing initial triage is evaluated by at least two independent experts — one clinical and one technical — as described above.
2. Double-Blind Review Process
We employ a strict double-blind peer review system. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
- Our administrative staff handles all initial .docx and Google Doc submissions, stripping title pages and identifying metadata before sending the manuscript to reviewers.
- Reviewers are instructed to evaluate the work solely on its scientific, technical, and clinical merit, free from institutional bias.
3. Core Evaluation Criteria
- Clinical Relevance: Does the AI tool or methodology address a genuine clinical need, improve patient outcomes, or optimize surgical workflows?
- Algorithmic Rigor: Is the methodology sound? Are the training, validation, and testing datasets distinct and clearly described?
- Generalizability & Bias: Have the authors addressed potential biases in their training data? Will the model perform reliably across diverse patient populations and different hospital systems?
- Reproducibility: Is the methodology detailed enough that another research team could replicate the study? (Code and data sharing are highly weighted.)
4. Decisions
Following review, the editorial board will issue one of four decisions:
Accept
The manuscript is ready for publication as is (rare on first submission).
Minor Revision
The core science is sound, but minor clarifications or text adjustments are required.
Major Revision
High potential, but requires further technical validation, data analysis, or significant rewriting.
Reject
Falls outside scope, contains fundamental technical flaws, or lacks sufficient clinical impact.
Timeline Expectations
By utilizing a format-free initial submission and a streamlined editorial workflow, we aim to provide initial decisions in less than a month and fully publish accepted articles within 10 weeks.
Days 0–3
Administrative Triage
Submissions are checked by editorial staff for scope, basic structure, and plagiarism. The manuscript is blinded and assigned to an Associate Editor.
Weeks 1–4
First Round Peer Review
The manuscript undergoes independent evaluation by clinical and technical reviewers.
Week 4
Initial Editorial Decision
Authors receive comprehensive feedback and a decision (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).
Weeks 5–8
Author Revisions
Authors are given up to 14 days for minor revisions and up to 30 days for major revisions to address reviewer feedback.
Weeks 8–10
Final Acceptance & Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript moves into rapid typesetting. A final proof is sent to the authors, and the article is published online immediately upon approval.