Peer Review Policy

he Medical Journal of Oncology (MJO) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, ethical, and transparent double-blind peer review process. This ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and confidentially, with the goal of publishing high-quality, scientifically sound, and ethically responsible oncology research.

---

1. Type of Peer Review

MJO uses a double-blind peer review system:

• Authors’ identities are not revealed to reviewers.

• Reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors.

• This process reduces bias and ensures impartiality in editorial decisions.

---

2. Initial Editorial Screening

• All submissions undergo preliminary assessment by the Editorial Office.

• Manuscripts may be desk-rejected if they:

  • Fall outside the scope of oncology and cancer research

  • Lack originality or scientific quality

  • Fail to comply with ethical or technical standards (e.g., plagiarism, missing IRB approval, incomplete trial registration)

---

3. Reviewer Selection

• At least two independent experts are assigned to each manuscript.

• Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise (clinical oncology, molecular oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, immunotherapy, etc.)

  • Research experience and publication record

  • Absence of conflicts of interest

• For clinical trials or industry-sponsored studies, reviewers with experience in trial methodology are prioritized.

---

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

• Provide fair, objective, and timely assessments.

• Evaluate:

  • Scientific validity of methodology, study design, and statistical analysis

  • Ethical compliance, including patient safety, informed consent, and trial registration

  • Relevance and originality of findings

  • Transparency in reporting funding sources and conflicts of interest

• Suggest constructive improvements for clarity and rigor.

• Decline review if they:

  • Have a conflict of interest (e.g., competing trials, financial ties, close collaboration with authors)

  • Lack sufficient expertise in the subject matter

• Maintain strict confidentiality and never use unpublished data for personal advantage.

---

5. Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on:

• Novelty and impact in oncology research

• Robustness of study design (especially for clinical trials)

• Reliability and reproducibility of results

• Appropriate use of statistical analysis

• Ethical soundness (IRB approval, patient consent, trial registration)

• Clarity of writing and adherence to reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT for clinical trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews)

---

6. Editorial Decision Process

Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief (or Associate Editor) may decide:

• Accept without changes

• Minor revision (accepted after small corrections)

• Major revision (authors must address significant concerns before reconsideration)

• Reject (unsuitable for publication)

In cases of conflicting reviewer reports, a third reviewer or a member of the editorial board will be consulted.

---

7. Revision and Resubmission

• Authors must respond point-by-point to reviewer comments.

• Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed (especially in major revisions).

• Failure to adequately address concerns may result in rejection.

---

8. Timelines

MJO aims to ensure efficient processing:

• Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks

• Peer review: 3–6 weeks

• First decision: within 6–8 weeks of submission

• Final decision (after revision): 2–3 weeks

---

9. Appeals and Complaints

• Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe the manuscript was unfairly assessed.

• Appeals must include a detailed written justification.

• Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, an independent board member.

• The decision on appeals is final.

---

10. Ethical Oversight in Peer Review

MJO strictly prohibits:

• Reviewer misconduct (delaying reviews, breaching confidentiality, using ideas/data for personal benefit)

• Manipulation of the peer review process (fake reviewers, identity fraud)

• Unethical citation practices (coercive citations, citation cartels)

Any misconduct will be investigated according to COPE guidelines.