Current Thoracic Surgery (CTS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, fair, and independent peer-review process in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and research integrity, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
Manuscripts Subject to External Peer Review
The following “manuscript types are generally subject to external peer review”:
Original Articles, Review Articles, Technical Notes, Case Reports, Case Series, and İmages in Thoracic Surgery. Editorials, invited commentaries, letters, and other non-research content may be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and may not routinely undergo external peer review unless considered necessary.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, “manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team” for: relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, scientific and clinical significance, originality and potential contribution to the relevant field, compliance with the journal's submission requirements, ethical and research integrity requirements
Appropriate reporting of methods and results, plagiarism and duplicate publication, potential conflicts of interest, overall scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic scientific, ethical, or editorial requirements may be rejected without external peer review.
Reviewer Selection and Expertise
“Reviewers are selected” by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editors based on: relevant scientific, clinical, methodological, or technical expertise, academic or professional qualifications, relevant publication and research experience, experience in peer review, where available, independence from the authors and their institutions, absence of relevant conflicts of interest, availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe. Authors may suggest potential reviewers. However, the final selection of reviewers remains solely at the discretion of the editorial team.
Double-Blind Peer Review
CTS uses a double-blind peer-review process for externally reviewed manuscripts. The journal takes reasonable measures to preserve reviewer anonymity throughout the editorial process.
Manuscripts submitted to CTS are “confidential documents”. So reviewers must treat all manuscript content and review materials as confidential. They must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional benefit and must not upload manuscripts or confidential review materials to generative artificial intelligence systems. “Reviewers with a significant conflict of interest” should decline the review invitation. Also, the editorial team may withdraw a reviewer from the process if a relevant conflict of interest is identified after the review has begun.
Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments and to make one of the following “recommendations” as Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine the final editorial decision. Reviewers should provide clear explanations and specific comments supporting their recommendations. Personal, discriminatory, offensive, or irrelevant comments are not acceptable.
Editorial Decision
The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief considers reviewer reports together with the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope when reaching an editorial decision. At least two external reviewers are assigned to each manuscript subject to external peer review. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary according to the manuscript type, subject matter, methodological complexity, or conflicting reviewer recommendations.
Editorial Conflicts of Interest and Recusal
The Editor-in-Chief cannot personally handle manuscripts in which the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, including manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief or manuscripts involving a significant personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflict. In such cases, the manuscript will be assigned to an independent Editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The recused Editor-in-Chief will not participate in reviewer selection, evaluation of reviewer reports, editorial discussions, or the final editorial decision. Editors and other Editorial Team Members are subject to the same recusal principle and must withdraw from the editorial process whenever their involvement could reasonably compromise the independence or impartiality of the decision.
Peer-Review Records
“Peer-review reports”, editorial correspondence, and relevant editorial records are retained securely by the journal in accordance with its editorial record-retention procedures and applicable ethical and regulatory requirements.Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with the journal's peer-review policy.
Reviewer Misconduct
Suspected “reviewer misconduct” will be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and relevant international publication-ethics standards.
Authors may “appeal an editorial decision” when they believe that a significant error, misunderstanding, procedural problem, or inappropriate consideration materially affected the decision. Appeals should provide a clear and evidence-based explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. Where appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision. “Complaints concerning the peer-review or editorial process” will be handled confidentially and investigated according to the journal's publication ethics policies.
