The purpose of peer review for the Journal of Chest Surgery (JCS) includes the followings:
1) To evaluate objectively the science, originality, validity, and potential impact of the submitted paper, AND
2) To provide constructive comments and suggestions to the authors to assist them in improving the quality of the paper.

Two reviewers considered as the most relevant investigators regarding the topic are assigned to review each full-length article. Decisions are based on originality, validity, and potential impact of the material presented. For articles considered as possible candidates for publication, additional positive and constructive guidance through editorial revisions should be made to aid clarity and understanding without altering the meaning. All accepted full-length articles will have undergone a statistical review as well.

Reviewers are requested to recommend the articles that are distinguished by their originality, scientific competence and validity, and articles which will have the greatest clinical, theoretical, and educational impact on the field of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.
Reviewers are asked to consider the following:

• 1)

  Is the research original?

• 2)

  How important and interesting is the topic of the research?

• 3)

  Does the methods and experimental techniques reach the highest scientific standard?

• 4)

  Are the results reliable and presented clearly?

• 5)

  Are the conclusions justified by the results presented?

• 6)

  Is the discussion relevant and comprehensible?

• 7)

  Are the illustrations and references appropriate and necessary?

• 8)

  Is the paper well organized and with clear English writings?

• 9)

  Will the paper impact the specialty?

Based on the above criteria, reviewers are requested to recommend acceptance, major or minor revision, or rejection, together with the comments that support their decisions. Only papers with the potential to achieve a high priority will be accepted or returned to authors for revision.

The reviewer should keep in mind that his/her imperative is to assist the author in increasing the quality of the paper, and this should be done positively rather than negatively.

Acceptance of a manuscript in the JCS is determined through rigorous peer-reviewing process. After the Editor-in-Chief assign an Associate Editor, the assigned editor sends the manuscript to reviewers for peer-review. The assigned reviewers review the manuscript and their review results are reported to the Editor-in-Chief. Finally, Editor-in-Chief notify review results to the corresponding author(s).
If there is any objection to the review results, corresponding author(s) can appeal within 2 weeks after being notified. Editor-in-Chief has the obligation to notify the results after one more review.

Generative AI tools can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that, while the journal explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools. If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.