Peer review process

Articles are submitted online via the Submit Article and Peer Review System pathway on the journal’s website. Every article is evaluated by 2 reviewers, each of whom has approximately 21 working days to critically appraise the manuscript and send their appraisals to the Editors. Reviewers grade the manuscripts’ appraisals as:

A - accepted without modifications;
B - accepted with minor modifications;
C - accepted with major modifications;
D - not accepted for publication.

The reviewed manuscripts are consequently evaluated by the scientific board and the Editor-in-Chief retains authority to determine whether the final manuscript will be published.

Instructions for Reviewers

Reviewers are required to accept or decline to review a manuscript within 2 working days since the invitation was received. If they accept the invitation, the evaluation forms containing the specific reviewing comments ought to be received by the Editors within 15 working days. The reviewers comments will be attached to an invitation to make the required changes in the manuscript and will be sent back to the corresponding author. The second part of the reviewing process consists of resending the amended manuscript to the Editorial board in order to make the final decision.


Reviewers will observe strict confidentiality regarding both the content of the manuscripts they receive, as well as their entire correspondence with the Editorial Board. The Reviewers will under no circumstances send a manuscript or part of a manuscript to a third party. They will not attempt to contact the Authors and are strictly prohibited to discuss any aspect of the reviewing process directly with the Authors. The manuscript cannot be cited before publication without the written consent of the Editorial Board. The Reviewers will refuse reviewing any manuscript with potential conflict of interest related to academic, economic or personal relationship with the Authors. The Reviewers will disclose the aforementioned reasons in the rationale for refusing to review a certain manuscript.

The revision method used for all articles published by Chirurgia is Single blind: the identities of the authors are known to the reviewers, but the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.
For the articles received from the board members we use the Double blind method: the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept anonymous.

Guidelinesfor Reviewers

General comments will involve all of the following topics:
1. Importance, impact and originality of study;
2. Clarity of presenting the scientific content;
3. Ethical aspects which may preclude publishing the article.

Specific comments will include all the following topics:

Title: concise and illustrative for the content of the article.
Abstract: should clearly and concisely present general information about the aim of the study (Aim and Objectives), the material and methods that were employed (case control/cohort study, basic research, meta-analysis), most significant results and main conclusions. Importantly, authors are expected to highlight the novel aspects of the study. Introduction: specifically mentions the reason why a certain study was undertaken and briefly lays out the present state of affairs in the studied domain. Should not engage in a literature review.
Material and methods: selection criteria of studied participants and controls, diagnostic criteria, clinical data gathering, number of observations (for clinical studies) / thorough description of animal studied group (basic research), statistical methods and laboratory measurements should all be rigorously assessed for adequacy to the chosen type of study. Protocols for new methods should be included in detail. If materials, methods, and protocols are already well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail. However, the manuscript should include sufficient information to be understood independently.
Results: major findings of the study should be presented in graphic form if practicable. Minor details should not be illustrated if their message is conveyed adequately by simple descriptive text. The results should deliver evidence of experimental data which can lead to solid scientific conclusions. The studied cohort as well as the statistical methods employed should be adequate to the type of clinical/basic study chosen by the authors.
Discussion: novel aspects revealed by the study and their potential clinical impact should be outlined; comprehensive analyses capable of generating valuable conclusions should be presented in this section.
Tables and figures: all of the tables and figures should be essential for the overall content of the manuscript.
Bibliography: adequate and relevant citations complying with the Instructions for Authors section on the Chirurgia website (

Appraisal of the English language employed for writing the article

A - No modifications needed;
B - Requires minor syntax and stylistic adjustments;
C - Requires major modifications in spelling, grammar, topic and syntax;
D - Contains incomprehensible fragments which necessitate retranslation.

Manuscript grading

The reviewers are expected to classify the manuscript in one of the following categories
A - Very informative and clearly presented content;
B - Reasonably informative and intelligibly presented content;
C - Acceptable in terms of novelty of research;
D - Low quality of scientific methods employed, no interest in terms of novelty of information.

Final decision

A - Accepted;
B - Accepted pending on minor revisions;
C - Accepted pending on major revisions;
D - Not accepted for publication;

Reasons for not accepting a manuscript for publication

If the Reviewer decides to grade a manuscript with either C or D, they are expected to specify the main reasons for rejecting the manuscript for publication, or, conversely, the certain modifications which would render the amended manuscript acceptable for publication in the Chirurgia journal.
A manuscript can be rendered Not accepted for publication in any of the following situations:
i. the scientific content is not congruent with the domain of the journal;
ii. it contains already published data with minimal additional input, rendering it uninteresting to the reader;
iii. It lacks certain data which can impinge on the capacity of drawing relevant conclusions from the study.