Peer Review and the Educational Mission of The American Surgeon

Le résumé fourni par la source

The American Surgeon , as the official journal of the Southeastern Surgical Congress (SESC), serves as a central component of the society’s educational mission to support the development of surgeons, trainees, and clinical educators across the southeastern United States. Historically, manuscripts originating from annual meeting presentations were reviewed by publication committees rather than through formal peer review. As the journal matured and its citation record and Impact Factor grew in importance, The American Surgeon adopted a uniform policy requiring that all submissions—whether meeting-derived or independently submitted—undergo full anonymized peer review. This transition heightened expectations for scholarly rigor and placed new demands on trainees and clinical faculty whose primary responsibilities often center on education and patient care rather than research. To meet this challenge while preserving the society’s educational ethos, the journal introduced a structured Pre–Peer Review (Pre-PR) process grounded in four evaluative elements: Suitability Assessment, Editorial Domain Alignment, Readability and Language Assessment, and Positioning, Contextualization, and Currency. Together, these components provide a pedagogically oriented framework that improves manuscript clarity, coherence, and relevance prior to peer review. Authors receive a concrete revision plan and a concise coaching note that identifies actionable steps for strengthening their work. This approach transforms what might otherwise be a discouraging editorial barrier into a formative experience that enhances the quality of submissions and fosters scholarly growth. By integrating structured coaching with transparent editorial standards, The American Surgeon advances both its mission as a peer-reviewed journal and its longstanding commitment to the educational objectives of the SESC.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.