Peer Review Process

Impact Surgery operates an editor-led, single-blind peer review process intended to ensure that published work is methodologically robust, ethically sound, and relevant to surgical practice, research, and systems. Peer review forms part of a broader editorial assessment and is considered alongside the journal’s aims and scope, reporting quality, and compliance with ethical and governance standards. Final editorial decisions are made independently by the journal’s editors and are informed, but not determined, by external peer review.

Overview of the review process

All manuscripts submitted to Impact Surgery are assessed in stages. Following submission, manuscripts are checked to ensure that required files and metadata are complete and that the submission is within the scope of the journal. An initial editorial assessment is then undertaken to determine whether the manuscript should proceed to external peer review or be declined at this stage. Manuscripts that pass initial assessment are sent for single-blind external peer review, in which reviewers are aware of author identities, while authors do not know reviewer identities. The handling editor oversees the peer review process and is responsible for reviewer selection and editorial decision-making.

Initial editorial assessment

The initial editorial assessment is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriate handling editor. This stage focuses on whether the manuscript is suitable for external review and whether peer review is likely to be constructive. Editors consider relevance to the journal’s remit, originality, scientific or scholarly value, completeness of reporting, and whether the work appears to meet basic ethical and governance requirements. Manuscripts may be rejected without external review where they are out of scope, lack sufficient methodological rigour, or do not meet minimum ethical or reporting standards. In some cases, manuscripts may be returned to authors for clarification before further consideration.

External peer review

Manuscripts sent for external review are evaluated by independent reviewers selected for their subject matter and methodological expertise. Impact Surgery aims to obtain reviews from at least two independent external reviewers for research manuscripts wherever possible. In some circumstances, particularly for specialised, methodological, or invited content, a different number of reviewers may be considered appropriate. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback and to assess the manuscript’s scientific quality, methodological rigour, clarity of reporting, interpretation of results, and relevance to the journal’s readership. Where a manuscript spans multiple disciplines, additional reviewers may be invited to address specialist aspects such as statistics, qualitative methods, systematic review methodology, or health services research.

What reviewers are asked to assess

Reviewers are asked to comment, as applicable, on the clarity and importance of the research question, the appropriateness and transparency of the methods, the validity of the results and conclusions, and adherence to ethical and reporting standards. Reviewers may also be asked to comment on the completeness of reporting in relation to recognised reporting guidelines and to identify areas where clarity or transparency could be improved.

Editorial decision-making

Editorial decisions are made by editors after consideration of reviewer reports and the overall balance of strengths and limitations of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and final responsibility for decisions rests with the editorial team. Possible editorial outcomes include rejection, invitation to revise, or acceptance. Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond to reviewer and editor comments in a structured, point-by-point manner. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, particularly where substantive methodological or interpretive changes have been made.

Confidentiality and integrity of peer review

Peer review is treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts, data, or correspondence, and must not use information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage. Editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, and manuscript versions are retained within the editorial system to support accountability and audit of editorial decisions.

Conflicts of interest in peer review

Editors and reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest and to recuse themselves where appropriate. Where a conflict is identified during the review process, the manuscript may be reassigned or additional reviewers invited to ensure the integrity and independence of editorial decision-making.

Use of technology in peer review

Technology may be used to support aspects of manuscript handling, including plagiarism screening, reporting checklist verification, and reference checks. These tools do not make editorial decisions, accept or reject manuscripts, or generate peer review reports. Editorial judgement remains with editors and reviewers at all stages.

Appeals, concerns, and complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the editorial office at editor@impact-surgery.org within 30 days of the decision. Appeals must clearly state the grounds for appeal and focus on procedural or ethical concerns. Appeals are reviewed by an editor not previously involved in the decision where feasible. Outcomes may include upholding the original decision, initiating re-review, or assigning a new handling editor. If concerns cannot be resolved at journal level, authors may escalate the matter through the publisher’s complaints procedure.