Peer Review Process

Peer Reviewer Process

Comprehensive Oncology adheres to a rigorous peer review process designed to ensure the quality and integrity of the research published. This process involves several stages, each aimed at maintaining high standards in scientific publishing.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

  • Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.
  • Initial Assessment: The editorial office performs an initial evaluation to confirm that the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and meets basic quality and formatting requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.
  • Plagiarism Check: Submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using recognized detection tools to ensure the originality of the content.

2. Assignment to Associate Editor

  • Editorial Assignment: The manuscript is assigned to an associate editor with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic.
  • Evaluation: The associate editor assesses the manuscript’s suitability for peer review and may request revisions from the authors before proceeding with the review process.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

  • Reviewer Selection: The associate editor identifies and invites two or more experts in the field to review the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, reputation, and previous experience in manuscript review.
  • Confidentiality: The peer review process is double-blind, ensuring that both the identities of the authors and reviewers remain confidential to preserve objectivity and impartiality.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting the review assignment. If a conflict is identified, an alternative reviewer will be selected.

4. Review Process

  • Review Timeline: Reviewers are typically given 2-4 weeks to complete their evaluations. Extensions may be granted if needed.
  • Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on its scientific validity, originality, significance, clarity, and relevance to the field of oncology. Constructive feedback is provided to assist authors in improving their manuscript.
  • Reviewer Reports: Reviewers submit detailed reports outlining their assessments, including recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection.

5. Editorial Decision

  • Decision-Making: Upon receiving reviewer reports, the associate editor compiles the feedback and makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief, who makes the final decision regarding the manuscript’s fate.
  • Communication: Authors are informed of the editorial decision and provided with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

  • Revision Requests: If revisions are required, authors are given a deadline to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.
  • Re-evaluation: Revised manuscripts may be reviewed again by the original or new reviewers, depending on the extent of the changes made.

7. Acceptance and Publication

  • Final Acceptance: Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting. Authors are provided with proofs for final approval before publication.
  • Publication: The finalized manuscript is published online as an open-access article in Comprehensive Oncology.