Peer reviewers are essential to ensuring the scientific quality, ethical integrity, and clinical relevance of manuscripts submitted to Archives of Operative Medicine (AOM). This guideline outlines our expectations from reviewers and provides a step-by-step framework for conducting thorough, objective, and constructive evaluations.

 

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

• Provide a confidential, unbiased, and timely assessment
• Evaluate the manuscript solely based on scientific merit and ethical standards
• Identify strengths, weaknesses, methodological flaws, and ethical concerns
• Offer constructive feedback to help authors improve their work
• Declare any conflicts of interest and recuse yourself if necessary
• Maintain confidentiality and never use content for personal benefit

All reviews must be completed within 2–3 weeks. Please notify the editorial office promptly if you are unable to meet the deadline.

 

2. Double-Blind Review Process

• AOM uses a double-blind peer review system:
• Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities.
• Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.
• Reviewers should avoid writing comments that might inadvertently reveal their identity.

 

3. Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please assess the following:

Scientific Quality

• Is the research question clearly defined?
• Are the methods appropriate and replicable?
• Are the results statistically sound and adequately interpreted?

Originality and Relevance

• Is the study novel or does it significantly add to the existing body of knowledge?
• Does it address a relevant clinical or academic problem in operative medicine?

Ethical Integrity

• Is there documentation of ethics approval and informed consent (if applicable)?
• Are there any signs of plagiarism or data manipulation?

Clarity and Structure

• Is the manuscript logically organized and clearly written?
• Are tables and figures appropriate and useful?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data?

 

4. Review Report Format

Your review will be structured in two parts:

1. Comments to the Editor (Confidential)

• Provide a brief summary of your overall evaluation.
• Mention any serious concerns, suspected misconduct, or recommendation to reject.

Example:

The manuscript addresses an important issue, but the small sample size and lack of ethical approval raise concerns.

1. Comments to the Author

Use clear, respectful, and constructive language. Organize your feedback into major and minor comments.

Example — Major Comment:

The methods section lacks information on patient selection criteria. Please clarify inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Example — Minor Comment:

Consider rephrasing the conclusion for clarity and avoid overstating the findings.

 

5. Recommendation Options

At the end of your review, you will be asked to select one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

If recommending revision, please indicate whether you wish to review the revised version.

 

6. Confidentiality and Data Use

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential. Sharing, discussing, or using the content for personal purposes is strictly prohibited.

 

7. Recognition and Certificates

AOM values the contributions of its reviewers. Upon completion of each review:

• You may request a certificate of review
• Outstanding reviewers may be invited to the Editorial Board
• We may publicly acknowledge reviewers annually (with consent)

 

8. Declining a Review Invitation

Please decline the invitation if you:

• Lack expertise in the topic
• Have a conflict of interest (academic, personal, financial)
• Are unable to meet the review deadline

Simply use the decision link in your invitation email or contact editor@aomjournal.com