Reviewer Guidelines

Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine (CSMM) asks all reviewers to follow these guidelines, consistent with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

1. General Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript, and all information associated with it, as strictly confidential. Do not share, discuss, or reproduce any part of it without explicit permission from the editorial office.
  • Objectivity: Provide an unbiased, professional, and constructive review, focused on the manuscript's scientific merits. Reviews are conducted under a double-blind model — do not attempt to identify or independently research the authors' identities.
  • Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe, consistent with the journal's overall target of 12–14 weeks from submission to first editorial decision. If unable to meet the deadline, inform the editorial office promptly.
  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation, and decline where one exists, per the journal's Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers) policy.

2. Use of AI Tools During Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to public generative AI tools to assist with generating a review report. Doing so risks exposing unpublished, confidential author work to third-party systems and would breach confidentiality obligations, consistent with the journal's GenAI Policy.

3. Review Process

Initial Evaluation: Assess whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and adheres to submission guidelines.

Key Evaluation Criteria:

  • Originality: Is the research novel and scientifically significant?
  • Methodological Rigor: Are the methods, including statistical analysis, sound and reproducible?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?
  • Contribution: Does the work meaningfully advance understanding of cancer biology or molecular oncology?
  • Ethical Compliance: Verify appropriate ethical approvals, informed consent, and conflict-of-interest disclosures are present.

4. Components of the Review Report

  • Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript's contribution
  • Strengths and Weaknesses: Key positives and significant shortcomings
  • Specific Comments: Numbered, and separated into Major Issues (must be addressed before acceptance) and Minor Issues (typographical, clarity, formatting)
  • Recommendation: Accept without revision / Minor revisions required / Major revisions required / Reject

5. Ethical Concerns

  • Plagiarism: Flag any suspected plagiarism or improperly cited material
  • Duplicate Submission: Notify the editorial office if the manuscript appears to overlap substantially with other published or submitted work
  • Data/Image Integrity: Flag any indication of data fabrication, falsification, or manipulated scientific images (e.g., blots, microscopy images)

6. Tone and Professionalism

Use respectful, constructive language focused on improving the manuscript. Avoid personal criticism of the authors.

7. Additional Points

  • Check that supplementary data, where provided, is adequate and properly documented
  • Evaluate whether figures, tables, and visual elements are clear, necessary, and correctly presented
  • Confirm references are relevant, sufficient, and appropriately cited

8. Communicating with the Editor

Share concerns directly with the editorial office, particularly when recommending rejection or identifying ethical concerns.

9. Confidentiality After Review

Do not use any unpublished data, methods, or insights from a reviewed manuscript for personal advantage, whether or not the manuscript is ultimately published.