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 journal’s
quality. All the Journals from “Scientific
Collegium†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 author’s and
reviewer’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:
Ø Does the manuscript meet your field of expertise or
interest? Accept only if you think you can give a high-quality peer review.
Ø Do you have any conflicts of interest? Reveal this to
the journal’s editor if any.
Ø Peer review of manuscript takes time and commit if you can spend time to review and give comments on time.
Ø 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
Ø
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work as this is an unpublished manuscript.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.
Ø
Access: Check the
invitation email to access the manuscript and to give the review.
Ø 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.
Ø
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?
Ø
Is the manuscript having
adequate information and uniqueness for publication in the journal?
Ø
Do the authors engross with
relevant research?
Ø
Is the manuscript topic apt
for the journal? Does the article contribute significantly to the present state
of the research field?
Ø
Do the manuscript title,
keywords, abstract, keywords, introduction reflect the key elements of the
manuscript?
Ø
Is manuscript writing
interesting, brief, simple to understand, and devoid of repetitions?
Ø
Are the objectives stated
clearly?
Ø
Are the methods in the research
study are suitable, scientifically correct, and clearly described, so that work
can be replicated by other researchers?
Ø
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).
Ø
Are suitable statistical
analyses applied and justified the explanation to the results?
Ø
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?
Ø
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?
Ø
Are the conclusions of the
manuscript supported by the results and appropriate data?
Ø
Are the references relevant
to the study and quoted appropriately and correctly? Are any important
references missing?
Ø
Should any sections of the
manuscript have been combined, expanded, condensed, or deleted? (be specific in
this).
3.
Structuring the review by reviewer
Ø
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.
Ø
Assess the manuscript
originality, recognize the merits and demerits of any part of the
manuscript.
Ø
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.
Ø
Give exact comments on the
manuscript’s structure and writing (such as figures, methodology, results,
author interpretations, conclusions, and statistics).
Ø
Give comments on the
author’s description of the pertinent latest progress in the arena.
Ø
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?
Ø
Language: If a paper has
grammatical errors, then mention them in the report.
Ø
Do not mention your name
and institute name or any personal details of yours in disclosing your identity
anywhere in the manuscript.
Ø
For any unclear and
incomplete points, seek explanation and incorporate suggestions if
needed.
Ø
Give positive comments that
encourage authors along with any negative feedback(if any).
Ø Avoid irrelevant vague statements and negative comments.
Give recommendations, comments to authors under the following headings.
Ø Revise: Clearly mention all the points for revision under subheadings, major and minor revision, and reason for the revision
Ø Accept: Mention positive feedback and approve after review and recommend proceeding for publication without revision.
Ø Reject: Mention reasons for rejection clearly in the report.