PEER REVIEW GUIDELINES
This guide was written to help you review the manuscripts sent to Edisciences Journals (Arguments of Geriatric Oncology - AGO, Journal of Cancer Rehabilitation - JCR, Supportive Palliative Cancer Care - SPCC, International Journal of Integrative Oncology - IJIO) . Reading this should clear up some concerns and guide you in completing a peer review report in the most accurate and timely manner to ensure that the document is properly reviewed and published quickly. We are committed to reducing the time it takes to publish an article. In this context, Edisciences makes every effort to develop a review process that is as complete and fair as possible as quickly as possible. As a result, reviewers are asked to submit their comments within 14 business days. All manuscripts sent to Edisciences Journals (Arguments of Geriatric Oncology, Journal of Cancer Rehabilitation and Supportive Palliative Cancer Care) are subject to individual peer review. The review is done anonymously. We believe that using anonymous peer reviewers is the best way to get honest opinions about documents. Edisciences Journals (Arguments of Geriatric Oncology, Journal of Cancer Rehabilitation and Supportive Palliative Cancer Care) require that reviewers do not contact the authors directly. COPE Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers should be considered before agreeing to review a manuscript and throughout the peer review process. Peer review is important because fellow reviewers' comments and recommendations are an essential guide for informing the publisher's decision about a manuscript. Peer review ensures that manuscripts receive impartial criticism and expert feedback, enabling authors to improve their manuscripts and thus to publish high-quality scientific research and reviews. This also helps readers to trust the scientific integrity of the article and make informed decisions where peer-reviewed comments are available. After receiving a peer review request, it is essential that peer reviews respond in a timely manner, particularly if they cannot review, to avoid unnecessarily delaying the process. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest and have sufficient knowledge in the field to perform a thorough evaluation of the manuscript. They are also invited to keep all information relating to the identity of the authors and the content of the manuscript confidential. Peer review comments should be objective and constructive without being hostile or derogatory in nature. Further information on ethical review issues and conflicts of interest can be found in the COPE guidelines.
Proceeding for peer-review
Upon submission to the Journal, your paper enters peer review, where “peers” evaluate the quality of your work. Reviewers aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses existing research, and contributes to the discipline.
Download this infographic, which provides a visual journey of your paper’s process from submission to peer review. This path is also described below.
Initial review
Upon submission, the journal editor will first look at your manuscript to:
Check that it meets the aims & scope of the journal
Ensure that it complies with the submission guidelines
Conduct a brief scientific/methods check
After the initial check, one of three things may happen:
Unsubmit: If the paper contains errors that are minor and can be easily rectified, the editor may request the author fix formatting or missing information before re-submitting.
Desk reject: The paper is rejected before making it to the peer review stage. This means the editor thinks it is unlikely that the paper will proceed to publication in that journal. Depending on the reason for the desk reject, an author may want to find a different journal to submit to or rewrite the paper and submit again.
Editor invites reviewers: If the paper passes the editor check, then an invitation will go out to one or more reviewers until a reviewer accepts the paper for peer review. Most journals require at least two external peer reviewers on a manuscript.
Reviewer conducts review and makes a recommendation
The time spent in review is unique to each paper, ranging from a few weeks to several months, depending on submission quality and reviewer availability. Log in to the manuscript submission site to check the status of your paper.
Once the review is complete, reviewers usually make one of three recommendations to the editor about the submission:
Reject the paper
Accept as is (this is rare)
Recommends revisions, either major or minor
Note that the editor will make the final decision to accept or reject, based on the reviewer’s recommendation and their own feedback. Rejection is a normal part of academia and rates can be very high, so if your paper is rejected know you are not alone. Carefully consider the reviewer’s comments in order to determine what your options may be for rewriting or resubmitting your paper.
Author revisions
In most cases, a provisionally accepted paper will be returned for major or minor revisions. The author will revise and should respond to all editor and reviewer comments. For guidance, use the Author Response to Reviewers Template. The revisions process may be repeated until the editor can make an informed decision whether to accept the paper. Rejection may still occur, even after several rounds of revision if the comments are not adequately addressed.
Subsequent review
An editor may call upon peer reviewers to review revisions to ensure comments have been addressed. Occasionally, new expert referees will be invited to review subsequent drafts, in which case the paper will go through another round of peer review. While reviewers provide recommendations, the editor makes the final decision of acceptance.
Paper accepted
If your paper has been accepted, congratulations! Find out more about what to expect upon acceptance and publication clicking on the button below.