Reviewers are the resource people who are experts in the same subjects. The publishing team from the International Journal of Advances in Cancer Sciences (IJACS) is thankful to all the reviewers for their efforts, valuable time, and inputs that are provided in the process of peer review that aids to enhance the journalâ€™s quality. All the Journals from â€œScientific Collegiumâ€ practices the guidelines of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), https://publicationethics.org/
The objective of the peer review is to enhance the manuscript quality which is submitted and is under review. This journal practices a process of double-blind peer review in which all the authorâ€™s and reviewerâ€™s identities are hidden from one another.
Reviewers will consider the following important points while reviewing a paper.
1. Before you commence: Before accepting or decline an invitation to review the manuscript, considere these points:
Ã˜ Does the manuscript meet your field of expertise or interest? Accept only if you think you can give a high-quality peer review.
Ã˜ Do you have any conflicts of interest? Reveal this to the journalâ€™s editor if any.
Ã˜ Peer review of manuscript takes time and commit if you can spend time to review and give comments on time.
Ã˜ Reply to the review invitation as early as possible (accept or decline) as any delay in this will delay the review process and keep the author waiting. In case of any decline, suggest other reviewers who are experts in that area.
2. Managing the review of manuscript
Ã˜ Confidential: After accepting to review, you should consider that manuscript that you receive is confidential and treat it in the same way. This indicates that you cannot share the manuscript (any part of the manuscript) without authorization from the publishing house. You should not share or discuss with your team or colleagues, your work as this is an unpublished manuscript. As the peer review process is confidential, you should not share any info about the peer review with any others without authorization from the publishing house.
Ã˜ Access: Check the invitation email to access the manuscript and to give the review.
Ã˜ Manuscript & Journal related Instructions: While reviewing the manuscript, ensure that you acquaint yourself with the author guidelines of the journal (https://scientificcollegium.com/journals/Advances-in-Cancer-Sciences/author-guidelines) and other important pages such as Publishing Policy.
Ã˜ Is the manuscript as per the author guidelines (such as the structure of the manuscript) and fulfills all the requirements as per the publication ethics?
Ã˜ Is the manuscript having adequate information and uniqueness for publication in the journal?
Ã˜ Do the authors engross with relevant research?
Ã˜ Is the manuscript topic apt for the journal? Does the article contribute significantly to the present state of the research field?
Ã˜ Do the manuscript title, keywords, abstract, keywords, introduction reflect the key elements of the manuscript?
Ã˜ Is manuscript writing interesting, brief, simple to understand, and devoid of repetitions?
Ã˜ Are the objectives stated clearly?
Ã˜ Are the methods in the research study are suitable, scientifically correct, and clearly described, so that work can be replicated by other researchers?
Ã˜ Is the manuscript meets all the approvals of the research ethics and submitted to the journal? (manuscripts with any experimental data on patients or animals should be well documented and need ethical approval from the organization of the author/s. Please check journal ethical guidelines).
Ã˜ Are suitable statistical analyses applied and justified the explanation to the results?
Ã˜ Are the results and their content supported by sufficient data such as figures and tables? Are the results or any part of the results counterintuitive?
Ã˜ Are all figures and tables clearly labeled, well presented, interpretable easily? Is any info in the figures and tables unnecessary or repeated in the manuscript?
Ã˜ Are the conclusions of the manuscript supported by the results and appropriate data?
Ã˜ Are the references relevant to the study and quoted appropriately and correctly? Are any important references missing?
Ã˜ Should any sections of the manuscript have been combined, expanded, condensed, or deleted? (be specific in this).
3. Structuring the review by reviewer
Ã˜ Providing an overall opinion and common observations of the manuscript by the reviewer is important. Ensure that your review will aid to accept or decline the manuscript by the editor.
Ã˜ Assess the manuscript originality, recognize the merits and demerits of any part of the manuscript.
Ã˜ Comments/suggestions should be constructive, courteous, and explain all the comments clearly so that authors and editors can understand clearly so that they can take further steps to improve the paper if necessary.
Ã˜ Give exact comments on the manuscriptâ€™s structure and writing (such as figures, methodology, results, author interpretations, conclusions, and statistics).
Ã˜ Give comments on the authorâ€™s description of the pertinent latest progress in the arena.
Ã˜ Comment if any research or ethical or publication misconduct, for example: Is the manuscript plagiarised another manuscript or any manipulations in the results or meeting all the publication ethics?
Ã˜ Language: If a paper has grammatical errors, then mention them in the report.
Ã˜ Do not mention your name and institute name or any personal details of yours in disclosing your identity anywhere in the manuscript.
Ã˜ For any unclear and incomplete points, seek explanation and incorporate suggestions if needed.
Ã˜ Give positive comments that encourage authors along with any negative feedback(if any).
Ã˜ Avoid irrelevant vague statements and negative comments.
Give recommendations, comments to authors under the following headings.
Ã˜ Revise: Clearly mention all the points for revision under subheadings, major and minor revision, and reason for the revision
Ã˜ Accept: Mention positive feedback and approve after review and recommend proceeding for publication without revision.
Ã˜ Reject: Mention reasons for rejection clearly in the report.