Editorial Workflow

1. Introduction

Every manuscript submitted to Journal of Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Surgery in Newborn, Children and Adolescent will follow a double blind peer-review process.

The manuscript is checked by the journal’s editorial office and made ready for anonymous review process. Hence the manuscript is sent to the Editorial Board Members based on the subject of the manuscript, the availability of the Editors, and the lack of any potential conflicts of interest with the submitting authors. The manuscript may also be sent to a number of external peer reviewers. The journal’s editors will have two weeks to provide either a recommendation for the publication of the manuscript, along with a written commentary detailing any changes that the authors can make to improve their manuscript before final publication, or a written critique of why the manuscript should not be published. In this page you can find a schema for a review report.

If the majority of the editorial evaluations that are received by the end of this first round of review recommend the manuscript be rejected, the manuscript will be rejected. If all the editorial evaluations that are received recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication, the manuscript will be accepted. Otherwise, all the received editorial evaluations will be anonymously communicated to all of the Editors who participated in the first round of the review process. Each Editor will be given an additional week to review the feedback of the other Editors and to either confirm or revise their earlier editorial recommendations. For those papers that have to be revised and resubmitted the editors will review the changes and check that all has been correctly addressed. If the majority of the editorial evaluations that are received by the end of this second round of review recommend the manuscript be accepted for publication, the manuscript will be accepted. Otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected.

The editorial model is designed to provide fast peer review for each manuscript while at the same time ensuring that only manuscripts that are both rigorous and provide a useful contribution to their field of research are accepted for publication.

English speaker expert will revise the manuscript after the acceptance in order to prepare the typeset and proof that will be sent to the authors for a last revision before the publication.

2. Peer reviewers template

Title of the manuscript: ***

Name and email address of the reviewer: ***

Classification of manuscript : academic content evaluation
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B (Good)
Grade C (Poor)

Originality of the paper
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B (Good)
Grade C (Poor

Methodology
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B (Good)
Grade C (Poor)

Manuscript organization
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B (Good)
Grade C (Poor)

Writing style
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B (Good)
Grade C (Poor)

Quality of references
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B (Good)
Grade C (Poor)

Tables and Images
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B (Good)
Grade C (Poor

Classification of manuscript: general evaluation

Grade A: Priority publishing
Grade B: Minor language polishing
Grade C: major language polishing (a great deal with language polishing)
Grade D : Rejected

Conclusion
Accept
High priority for publication
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Rejection

Remarks
Confidential comments to the editor
_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_______________________________

Comments to Authors
________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________

 

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Studio Negativo