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  • Maintain strict confidentiality and never use unpublished data for personal advantage.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