Cancer Research Frontiers criteria for publication
Reviewers should agree to review a manuscript only if they have expertise in the subject area adequate for accurate assessing and giving a constructive report. Reviews should be based on relevancy, integrity, scientific strength, potential interest, completeness, clarity, and ethics in the work reported in manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication and help the authors improve the manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether additional experiments or data are required to support the conclusions. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.
1 The criteria for publication at Cancer Research Frontiers, which reviewers should take into account:
- The study presents the results of primary scientific research.
- Reviewers should comment on the originality and importance of the study. If the research is unoriginal because related work has been published previously, reviewers are advised to give relevant references. Reviewers should notify the editor immediately if they find that any information in the manuscript is plagiarized or infringed.
- Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
- The research must have been performed to a technical standard high enough to allow robust conclusions to be drawn from the data. Methods and reagents also must be described in sufficient detail to permit another researcher to reproduce the experiments described.
- Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and supported by the data.
- The results must be interpreted appropriately, such that all conclusions are justified. However, authors may discuss possible explanations for their results as long as these are clearly identified as speculations or hypotheses, rather than as firm conclusions. Inappropriate interpretation of results is a justifiable reason for rejection.
- The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.
- Cancer Research Frontiers does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. If the language of a paper is difficult to understand or includes many errors, we may reject it, or recommend authors seek independent editorial help before submitting a revision.
- The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
- The research must have been conducted to the highest ethical standards. Reviewers should notify the editor if they have any concerns about ethical aspects or misconduct in the research.
2 Confidentiality
The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality and not disclose the described information until the manuscript is published. They should not use the information for their own benefit or share with any other individual or organization. Reviewers should not attempt to contact the authors regarding the manuscript without permission of the editor.
3 Timely Review
Cancer Research Frontiers believes that an efficient editorial process that results in timely publication is valuable both to the authors and the scientific community. Reviewers are reminded of the importance of timely reviews. They are given two weeks to submit their reviews. If they encounter or foresee any difficulties in meeting the deadline for a report, they should contact
4. Competing Interests
Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interests and seek assistance from the editor regarding any uncertain conflicts. Examples of obvious competing interest are: 1) reviewer was or may have been a collaborators on other projects with the authors of the manuscript under review; 2) reviewer and authors are or may be direct competitors; 3) reviewer has or may have a known history of antipathy toward the author(s); or 4) reviewer might profit financially from the work described. Read more about the policy regarding competing interests.
