All submissions to Archives of Operative Medicine (AOM) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and relevance of published content. This means that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Editorial Screening

Upon submission, all manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards. Submissions that do not comply may be returned to the authors for revision or desk rejection without external review.

Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:

• Scientific originality and novelty
• Methodological rigor
• Clinical or theoretical relevance
• Ethical standards
• Clarity and coherence of presentation

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback and clear recommendations: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

The editorial team, including the handling editor and Editor-in-Chief, considers reviewers’ comments and makes the final decision on each submission. In cases of significant disagreement between reviewers, a third reviewer may be invited to provide an additional opinion.

Timeline

The average time from submission to the first editorial decision is approximately 4 to 6 weeks. The total time to publication may vary depending on the extent of revisions required.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use or disclose any information contained within. The journal follows COPE guidelines for peer review integrity and expects reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when necessary.