POLICIES & ETHICS

Publishing and Editorial Policies

​

SurgiColl closely follows standard publishing and editorial policies, including recommendations made by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics.

 

SurgiColl adheres to the highest standards concerning its editorial policies on publication ethics, scientific misconduct, consent and peer review criteria. Please see below for our policies on Peer Review, Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, Data Sharing, Plagiarism, and Human Rights.

​

​

Authorship and Contributorship

​

We adhere to the principle that authorship should be based on substantial contributions to the work. We expect authors to:

​

• Substantial Contribution: Have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.   

• Drafting and Revision: Have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content.   

• Final Approval: Have given final approval of the version to be published.   

• Agreement to Accountability: Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.   

​

All individuals who meet the criteria for authorship should be listed as authors, and all listed authors should meet these criteria. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria (e.g., providing technical help, writing assistance, general support) should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have agreed to the submission and for managing all communication between the journal and the authors. We encourage authors to clearly define their roles and submit the "Author Contributions" file during the manuscript submission.   

Handling Complaints and Appeals

​

We have a clear process for addressing complaints and appeals related to the journal's content, editorial decisions, or ethical concerns.   

​

• Complaints: All complaints should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief (amir.kachooei@surgicoll.org). We will acknowledge receipt of the complaint promptly and will initiate a fair and thorough investigation. The nature of the complaint will determine the appropriate steps, which may involve seeking input from relevant editorial board members or external experts. We are committed to addressing complaints in a timely and constructive manner.

• Appeals: Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision, clearly stating the reasons for the appeal and providing any relevant supporting information. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and potentially other members of the editorial board. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the authors in a timely manner. The decision on an appeal is final.

​

Ethical Oversight

​

Research involving human or animal subjects must have been conducted ethically and in accordance with relevant international, national, and institutional guidelines.

​

• Human Subjects: Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants must include a statement indicating that the research was approved by an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB) and that informed consent was obtained from all participants (or their legal guardians). The name of the ethics committee/IRB and the approval number should be provided in the manuscript. Studies that did not involve formal ethical approval should include a statement justifying the reasons why.

• Animal Subjects: Manuscripts reporting studies involving animals must include a statement indicating that the research was conducted in accordance with relevant animal welfare guidelines and was approved by an appropriate ethics committee or institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). The name of the ethics committee/IACUC and the approval number should be provided in the manuscript.   

• Biosecurity and Biosafety: Research involving potential biosecurity or biosafety risks should adhere to relevant guidelines and regulations.

​

Intellectual Property

​

We respect intellectual property rights and adhere to copyright regulations.

​

• Copyright: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons BY-4.0 License.

• Permissions: Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any copyrighted material (e.g., figures, tables, large excerpts of text) from other sources. Evidence of permission must be provided at the time of manuscript submission.

​

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

​

We are committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published record. We provide mechanisms for addressing errors, concerns, and facilitating scholarly discussion after publication.

​

• Corrections: Significant errors or inaccuracies identified in published articles will be corrected through the publication of a corrigendum (for author errors) or erratum (for publisher errors). These will be clearly linked to the original article.

• Retractions: In cases of serious misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, plagiarism) or significant errors that invalidate the findings of a published article, the article may be retracted. Retractions will be clearly marked as such, linked to the original article, and will state the reasons for the retraction.   

​

By adhering to these publication ethics guidelines, we aim to ensure the quality, reliability, and integrity of the research published in our journal. We encourage all authors, reviewers, and editors to familiarize themselves with these policies. If you have any questions or concerns regarding publication ethics, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office. 

 

Process for Identification of and Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct

​

Our journal is committed to actively addressing and preventing research misconduct in all submitted and published works. We adhere to the guidelines and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling any allegations of research misconduct.

​

1. Identification and Prevention

​

• The editors and publisher of this journal will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred. This includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, citation manipulation, data falsification/fabrication, and image manipulation.

• These steps may include the use of plagiarism detection software, careful scrutiny of submitted manuscripts during the editorial process, and ongoing education for editors and reviewers on recognizing potential misconduct.

• In no case shall the journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

​

2. Raising Concerns and Allegations

​

• Anyone with concerns or allegations of research misconduct related to a submitted or published article in this journal should submit them in writing to the Editor-in-Chief (amir.kachooei@surgicoll.org).

• The allegation should be as specific as possible, providing details such as the manuscript title, author(s), and the nature of the suspected misconduct, along with any supporting evidence.

• All allegations will be treated seriously and will be handled confidentially in accordance with COPE guidelines.

​

3. Initial Assessment and Investigation (Following COPE Guidelines)

​

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief (in consultation with the editorial board and/or publisher as appropriate) will follow the relevant COPE flowchart to guide the initial assessment and investigation process. This typically involves:

​

• Initial Assessment: Determining if the concern is credible and warrants further investigation. This may involve gathering preliminary information and assessing the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.

• Responding to Whistleblowers: Protecting whistleblowers and ensuring fair treatment.

• Informing Relevant Parties: Deciding when and how to inform the author(s) of the allegation, as well as relevant institutions or funding bodies, while adhering to confidentiality.

• Gathering Evidence: Collecting and examining all available evidence related to the allegation. This may involve requesting explanations and documentation from the author(s), consulting with reviewers, and potentially seeking expert advice.

​

4. Decision-Making and Outcomes (Following COPE Guidelines)

​

The journal will follow the appropriate COPE flowchart to guide the decision-making process based on the findings of the investigation. Potential outcomes may include:

​

• No Misconduct Found: If the investigation finds no evidence of research misconduct, the matter will be closed, and the involved parties will be informed.

• Minor Misconduct: In cases of minor misconduct (e.g., unintentional errors in citation), appropriate corrections or clarifications may be published.

• Significant Misconduct: If significant research misconduct is confirmed, the journal will take appropriate action, which may include: ​

  • Correction/Erratum: Publication of a correction or erratum detailing the misconduct.

  • Expression of Concern: Publishing an expression of concern about the article while further investigation is ongoing or if the evidence is inconclusive but raises serious doubts.

  • Reporting to Institutional Authorities: Informing the authors' institution(s) and/or funding bodies of the findings of the investigation, as appropriate.

  • Embargoing Future Submissions: The journal may refuse to consider future submissions from the author(s) involved for a specified period.

• Retraction: The published article may be retracted. The retraction notice will be clearly linked to the retracted article, will identify the reason for retraction, and will aim to be visible to readers.

​

5. Transparency and Record Keeping

​

• The journal will maintain a clear record of all allegations of research misconduct and the outcomes of any investigations, while respecting confidentiality as appropriate.

• Any published retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern will be handled transparently and in accordance with COPE guidelines.

​

Our Commitment

​

We are dedicated to ensuring the integrity of the research we publish. By adhering to COPE guidelines, we aim to provide a fair and robust process for addressing allegations of research misconduct and maintaining the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

​

Peer Review

​

All authors and reviewers should read our Peer Review Policy before submitting an article or a review. Any article published in SurgiColl will have been reviewed through a single-blind peer review process. This means that the identities of the authors are disclosed to the reviewers but the identity of the reviewers will be concealed from the authors. Reviewers remain anonymous, which can reduce bias and encourage honest feedback, reviewers may be more willing to participate in the process, authors cannot directly appeal to reviewers or influence their perceptions, reviewers can better interpret the work’s significance when they know the authors’ backgrounds, including their previous work and expertise in the field, knowing the authors’ identities allows reviewers to evaluate potential biases or conflicts of interest based on the authors’ affiliations or reputations, authors may be more diligent in their work knowing that their identities are disclosed, which can lead to a higher quality of submissions, if the manuscript is relevant to a reviewer’s area of expertise, knowing the authors may open opportunities for future collaboration or networking, reviewers can tailor their feedback based on the authors’ previous contributions or specific areas of expertise, and making the review more relevant and constructive.

 

Once a manuscript is submitted to SurgiColl, the editorial board will send the manuscript out for review. All manuscripts submitted to SurgiColl are subject to peer review through an electronic process. SurgiColl will consider reviewers suggested by the author(s) of the manuscript for review but reserves the right to assign the manuscript to be reviewed by whomever they see fit. The manuscript will then be reviewed by two or more experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether or not it duplicates other published work, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently cleared for publication. Reviewers are also expected to provide their recommendation for whether or not the content of the manuscript is relevant to SurgiColl as a whole as well as make an evaluation on the manuscript’s originality, quality, and contribution to evidence about important questions.

 

As stated in our Submission Guidelines, we require that the author(s) of the manuscript declare any conflicts of interest (which could be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature) so that editors can assess these and factor them into their decisions. Reviewers are equally as expected to refer to the SurgiColl editorial board with any conflicts of interest prior to accepting to review a manuscript. Additionally, reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript simply to read it without intending to write a review.

 

All reviewers are expected to provide fair, honest, and unbiased feedback to the author(s) of the manuscript within the agreed upon timeframe. Reviewers are expected to be as specific as possible, to provide supporting evidence, and to be as professional and appropriate as possible. Reviews should be civil and constructive, and editors reserve the right to edit or remove any comments felt to be inappropriate.

 

Reviewers and Editors for SurgiColl adhere to the principles of the Singapore Declaration, and review manuscripts with upholding those principles in mind.

 

Requirements to Serve as a Reviewer for SurgiColl

​

• Hold a terminal degree (e.g. MD, DO, MBBS, or PhD)

• Have a minimum of 3 peer-reviewed publications in the English literature searchable on PubMed

• Possess expertise in the research and peer review process within the surgical specialty recruited to review in

 

​

Expectations of Reviewers for SurgiColl

​

• Respond promptly (within 72 hours) to accept or reject an invitation to review a manuscript

• Provide timely (within 2 weeks) and constructive review upon acceptance of the request to review a manuscript

• Complete the Reviewer’s Form, to be provided through the Reviewer portal

• Review a manuscript up to two times (includes a review of a revised manuscript)

 

​

Reimbursement for  Reviewers’ Services for SurgiColl

​

• Reviewers will receive $40 USD, for solicited reviews of manuscripts

• This payment will be inclusive of up to 2 reviews of a single manuscript

• In rare instances of the 3rd round of review, an additional $10 will be included.

• Payment to reviewers will be submitted electronically

• The name of the active reviewers will be published on the website annually

• Reviews will be recognized via collaboration of SurgiColl with Publons 

 

Note: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering reviewer feedback. The Editor-in-Chief may recommend the authors revise and resubmit the paper based on reviewer feedback.

 

​

Preprints

​

A preprint is a version of a research manuscript prior to formal peer review at a journal, that has been deposited on a public server. SurgiColl does not accept submissions that have been posted as preprints on any public repository or platform. To ensure the originality and integrity of the research we publish, all submitted manuscripts must be original works that have not been disseminated publicly in any form prior to submission.

 

​

Confidentiality

​

The manuscripts that authors submit to SurgiColl are the author’s confidential property. All manuscripts submitted to SurgiColl are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by the disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details prior to publication.

 

SurgiColl prohibits editors from sharing information about manuscripts, including their content and status within the review process, criticism by reviewers, and any other pertinent details about the manuscript with anyone other than the other editors, authors, and reviewers. SurgiColl will do its best to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, including requests from third parties to use manuscripts and reviews for legal proceedings.

 

Additionally, reviewers are also prohibited from sharing confidential information with anyone who is not an author of the manuscript or part of the editorial board. Reviewers are expected to keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential during the review process. Reviewers and editorial staff are prohibited from publicly discussing the author’s work. Additionally, reviewers must not use or claim the authors’ ideas prior to the publication of the manuscript. SurgiColl expects reviewers not to retain copies of the manuscript for their personal use and to delete or destroy copies of the manuscript after submitting their reviews. Because SurgiColl uses a single-blind review process, the identities of the authors will be revealed to the other party but the reviewers’ identity will at no point be revealed to the authors throughout the review process.

 

SurgiColl reserves the right to breach confidentiality only in the serious case that dishonesty, plagiarism, or fraud is alleged. SurgiColl will notify authors and reviewers if they intend to do so. In any other case, confidentiality must be honored by the editorial board of the publication as well as any and all associated parties.

 

​

Conflicts of Interest

​

According to the ICMJE uniform declaration of competing interests, authors should disclose four types of potential conflicts of interest:

​

• Associations with commercial entities that provided support for the work reported in the submitted manuscript

• Associations with commercial entities that could be viewed as having an interest in the general area of the submitted manuscript

• Any similar financial associations involving their spouse or their children under 18 years of age

• Non-financial associations that may be relevant to the submitted manuscript

 

SurgiColl believes that in order to make the best decisions for the publication and the manuscript, the journal editor should know about any competing interests that authors may have. Competing interests will be published along with the paper. While a competing interest is not inherently unethical, it should be acknowledged and openly stated. Authors must complete and sign a declaration of competing interests (conflict of interest) [MOU1] upon the submission of their manuscript. They are also encouraged to list any and all competing interests in the cover letter accompanying their submission.

 

​

Data-Sharing

​

SurgiColl encourages authors to make the data generated by research openly and publicly available upon the publication of their manuscript, wherever legally and ethically possible. We encourage authors to submit as much data as possible, but at least the minimum data required to reproduce the results presented in the article.

 

Data should not be shared in any way that could compromise participant anonymity or privacy, and data should not be shared if that would require the authors to break any laws or licensing agreements.

 

​

Plagiarism

​

SurgiColl takes issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and representing them as one’s own original work. Self-plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical or near-identical portions of one’s own work without citing the original. Unacknowledged use of AI-generated text is also considered plagiarism (see the SurgiColl’s policy on AI and Computer-Generated Content below).

SurgiColl screens each manuscript upon submission using plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate and Similarity Check, which is offered through CrossRef and is powered by iThenticate.

 

Where an article is found to have plagiarized other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgment, or where the authorship of the article is contested, SurgiColl reserves the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of the department or dean of the author’s institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action. SurgiColl’s Editorial Board will blacklist any author found to be guilty of plagiarism. The name of the author(s) committing plagiarism will also be disseminated to editors of other medical journals.

Additionally, SurgiColl seeks to protect the rights of our authors and will investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles.

 

​

AI and Computer-Generated Content

​

Text, figures, images, or graphics generated from AI, machine learning, or other algorithmic programs are allowed to be used in original works submitted to SurgiColl. However, AI-generated text is deemed reproduced material and must be cited as such, including:

• the prompt

• the AI tool and the version used

• the company that developed the tool

• the date the content was generated

• the general URL for the tool

 

The journal prohibits AI coauthorship. This policy is consistent with our license agreement, which requires that papers be the original work of the authors, who assume full accountability for the integrity of the work.

 

In SurgiColl, we believe that a manuscript may benefit from implementing AI software and platforms for literature review, fluent writing, and grammar check, making medical writing more comprehensible. We are not restricting the use of AI to enhance medical writing and literature reviews. Still, we require the authors to be transparent and disclose the use of AI in the synthesis of each manuscript section.

 

​

Human Rights

​

Our policy is to ensure that all articles published by SurgiColl are ethically acceptable. SurgiColl expects authors to follow the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration as revised in October 2024. All authors are expected to have received approval to conduct research from an independent, local, regional, or national review body (e.g. ethics committee or institutional review board). Papers describing investigations on human subjects must include a statement that the study was approved by the institutional review board, in accordance with all applicable regulations, and that informed consent was obtained after the nature and possible consequences of the study were explained.

 

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, such as names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be included in any article published by SurgiColl. Additionally, nonessential details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt about the anonymity of the subjects.

 

​

Advertising

​

SurgiColl does not permit commercial advertising.

 

 

​​