Peer Review Process

This section provides a brief overview of the peer review process at Annals of Breast Surgery (ABS).

1. Review criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:

• the material is original and timely;
• the manuscript is written clearly and in accordance with the guidelines for authors;
• appropriate study methods have been used;
• the data are valid;
• the conclusions are reasonable and well supported by the data;
• the information contained in the manuscript is important, topical, and medically relevant.

2. Peer Review Mode

ABS uses double-blind peer review, which means the identity of both the reviewer and the author are kept unknown to each other throughout the review process.

Normally, every manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. However, sometimes the opinions of more reviewers are sought. Peer reviewers are selected based on their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews. For research manuscripts, the editors may, in addition, seek the opinion of a statistical reviewer.

The existence of a manuscript under review should not be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality in relation to the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal’s editors.

Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed to help improve the quality of the editorial or peer-review processes. Identifying information remains confidential.

3. Provenance and Peer Review

ABS is committed to transparency. For articles that are commissioned, undergo rapid communication pathway (fast-track peer process) or published without external peer review (usually non-research articles, e.g., Editorial, Letter to the Editor and news items), there will be a “Provenance and Peer Review” statement in the footnote of the article, indicating whether it is commissioned or not and how the review was organized (e.g., with or without external peer review).

The Rapid Communication Pathway may be open for articles that are of exceptional clinical importance and urgency, of a public policy reason for urgent publication, or with previous peer review comments and revisions after rejection from another esteemed journal.

4. Transparent Peer Review

With a commitment to openness and accountability, and to increase the level of transparency throughout our peer review process, our editorial office has decided to fully implement the transparent peer review (TPR) process for all new submission from March 15, 2023.

For more detailed information, please refer to: https://abs.amegroups.org/announcement/view/131.

5. Online review system

To ensure the most convenient and efficient peer review process possible, our peer reviews are conducted electronically via the OJS system, which can be accessed through the journal’s website (https://abs.amegroups.org/login).

6. Recognition for Reviewers

ABS’s publisher AME has entered into an official partnership with Publons, as of April 2020. The partnership enables the contributions of our expert peer reviewers to be easily recognized. ABS’s peer review system is now integrated seamlessly into the Publons platform. As part of the review submission process, reviewers of ABS can now opt-in to Publons, and the review data can be transferred to Publons upon submission. For more information, please refer to: https://abs.amegroups.org/announcement/view/136.

7. Review process for all submissions (including those invited for a special series)

Letters to the Editor, Editorials, and news items written by the journal’s own editors usually do not undergo peer review; all other articles undergo standard peer review. Articles that are not peer reviewed will include a “Provenance and Peer Review” statement in the footnote.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial in-house review by the editorial office and are then assigned to an editor for an initial quality check. If a manuscript is deemed suitable, it is typically sent for external peer review to at least two reviewers, who provide an independent expert assessment of its scientific quality. Manuscripts judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review, although such decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field.

The editorial office coordinates the handling of submissions and acts as the primary liaison among authors, reviewers, and the Editor(s).

After external peer review, the editors make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice, choosing among several options: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Reviewers may recommend a course of action, but editors weigh conflicting advice and assess the strength of arguments rather than counting votes or rankings; decisions may also consider information unavailable to either party, with priority given to readers and the scientific community. We may seek follow-up advice when reviewers disagree or authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact, and we ask reviewers to be willing to provide it, while keeping consultation to the minimum needed for a fair hearing. Technical criticisms are taken seriously; if one reviewer opposes publication, we may ask other reviewers whether an unduly critical standard is being applied, and we occasionally add reviewers for specific technical issues.

8. Conflicts of interest

We follow COPE and ICMJE guidance on the declaration of conflicts of interest by authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as the WAME policies on Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals.

Reviewers, editors, editorial staff who participate in the review process must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that arises at any point during the editorial process and may bias, or be perceived to bias, editorial decision-making. Such conflicts should be reported to the editorial office as soon as they become known. For more information, please read the full conflicts of interest policy: https://abs.amegroups.org/page/about/conflicts-of-interest.

To ensure impartial decision-making, no author may review or make an editorial decision on their own manuscript, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. In particular, authors who hold a position on the journal’s editorial team are excluded from any editorial handling of their manuscript, including peer review, editing, and final decisions. In addition, editors are not involved in decisions about manuscripts written by family members or colleagues, or about manuscripts relating to products or services in which the editor has an interest. All such submissions are subject to the journal’s usual procedures, with peer review conducted independently of the relevant editor and their research group(s).

9. Special issues and article collections

Special issues and article collections undergo the same peer review process as regular submissions.

For Guest edited collections, we also follow the COPE guideline on Guest edited collections (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/guest-edited-collections).

Meanwhile, Guest Editors are recused from any role in the peer review of manuscripts included in the special issue or collection concerned. The journal editor oversees the peer review process for all special issues and article collections, ensures adherence to the journal’s standards of publishing ethics and responsiveness, and is responsible for final decisions on acceptance or rejection of articles.

10. Submission turnaround time

• In-house review: 1-3 weeks
• External peer review: 1-3 months
• Publication ahead of print: within 1 month after being accepted
• Formal publication: within 1-3 months after being accepted. Original Articles are listed as priority.

Updated on November 10, 2026