Peer Reviewing Process

Peer Review Policy

Overview

The Archives of Pediatric Neurosurgery (APN) enforces a rigorous, fair, and ethical peer review process to ensure scientific quality, clinical relevance, and research integrity. All research articles and most other submissions are peer-reviewed with a strong commitment to transparency, objectivity, and adherence to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

Peer Review Model

APN uses a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer review system:

  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

To preserve anonymity, the editorial team removes any author-identifying information from files sent to reviewers.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo a multi-step desk review:

  1. Compliance check for author guidelines and requirements (e.g., ORCID registration);

  2. Plagiarism screening using Turnitin™. Submissions with >30% similarity (excluding references) will be returned for revision or rejected;

  3. Editorial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors to determine suitability for peer review.

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

At least two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Relevant subject matter expertise;

  • Previous publications (especially as first or senior authors);

  • Prior performance as reviewers (quality and timeliness);

  • Absence of conflicts of interest.

In rare cases, if two reviews cannot be secured (e.g., niche topics), a single expert review may suffice, subject to editorial approval.

Guidelines and Ethics for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive, detailed, and professional feedback;

  • Evaluate originality, methodology, significance, validity of results, and clinical relevance;

  • Assess statistical robustness and data quality;

  • Suggest improvements where appropriate;

  • Declare any conflicts of interest;

  • Respect confidentiality;

  • Refrain from using unprofessional or biased language.

Use of generative AI tools is not permitted to analyze or summarize manuscripts. Any AI assistance must be transparently declared.

Reviewers must follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Misconduct (e.g., coercive citations, false identity, unjustified plagiarism accusations) will be investigated and may result in sanctions.

Editorial Oversight

Editors are responsible for:

  • Ensuring fairness, objectivity, and absence of bias;

  • Assigning at least one reviewer not suggested by the authors;

  • Making decisions based on the strength of the reviews, not necessarily consensus;

  • Providing detailed and well-supported editorial recommendations.

Author Involvement in Peer Review

Authors may:

  • Suggest potential reviewers, providing institutional email and ORCID or Scopus ID;

  • Request the exclusion of up to two individuals, with justification.

The editorial board reserves the right to accept or reject reviewer suggestions.

Submissions by Editors and Board Members

To maintain integrity and transparency:

  • Editors or board members submitting manuscripts will not participate in any aspect of the review or decision process for their own work;

  • Such submissions are handled independently by another editor with no conflict of interest;

  • The standard double-blind peer review process applies;

  • No preferential treatment or implicit bias is permitted.

Any potential conflict of interest must be clearly declared at submission.

Diversity, Inclusion, and Reviewer Recognition

APN is committed to promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion in the peer review process. Editors are encouraged to select reviewers from diverse geographical regions, gender identities, and underrepresented groups in neurosurgery.

Timely reviews are essential. Reviewers who complete reviews on time may be acknowledged in the journal and receive verified contributions through platforms such as ORCID.

Decisions and Revisions

Editorial decisions after peer review may be:

  • Accepted

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Rejected

If revisions are required, authors must submit both a clean and a tracked version of the revised manuscript, along with a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.

Following resubmission, editors may:

  • Accept the revised version;

  • Request further revisions or an additional review round;

  • Reject the manuscript.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or Co-Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals and Complaints

Appeals or complaints regarding editorial decisions or the review process must be submitted in writing to the APN Editorial Office at: editorialoffice@sbnped.com.br.

All cases are reviewed in accordance with COPE guidelines, ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability.

 

Last Update: 16th June 2025