All manuscripts submitted to Caspian Journal of Surgery (CJS) undergo a rigorous, fair, and confidential peer-review process designed to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality and integrity.
Initial Screening:
Upon submission, manuscripts are first screened by the editorial office to assess their compliance with the journal’s aims, scope, and submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements or fall outside the journal’s scope may be desk-rejected without external review.
Double-Blind Peer Review:
CJS employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the authors' and reviewers' identities are kept confidential throughout the review period to ensure impartiality and objectivity.
Reviewer Selection:
Manuscripts are assigned to expert reviewers based on their specific field of expertise. Reviewers are selected for their scholarly reputation, previous experience, and ability to provide constructive and unbiased evaluations.
Review Criteria:
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:
Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations for one of the following decisions:
Editorial Decision:
The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor, based on reviewers' comments and the manuscript’s overall quality and relevance.
Appeals:
Authors who wish to appeal a decision must submit a detailed justification letter to the editorial office. Appeals will be carefully reviewed by the editorial team and, if necessary, independent experts.
Commitment to Timeliness:
CJS strives to complete the peer-review process efficiently, aiming to provide initial decisions within 4–8 weeks after submission.