Authors have no influence over choosing reviewers other than stating if there may be a conflict of interest in their cover letter. Any reviewer with a conflict of interest will be asked to decline to review the manuscript; in accepting the invitation to review a manuscript you agree you have no conflict of interest.
Reviewers will be asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound, truly innovative or particularly topical or interesting. The journal allows a maximum of one revision of any manuscript. If it is substantially altered, it is likely to be rejected unless it is judged to be of outstanding importance by reviewer(s) or the editor.
The ultimate responsibility for any decision lies with the editor. Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially significant or suited for editorial comment. These articles may be given greater prominence and included in an ecancermedicalscience press release.
The ecancermedicalscience reviewer evaluation form and accompanying notes below outline the main areas and criteria we ask reviewers to consider in assessing whether an article meets the requirements of the journal.
We take this opportunity to thank all our peer reviewers for their vital contribution to the ongoing development and success of the journal.
Peer reviewers are asked to complete the report form to assist the editor in judging the suitability of an article for publication in ecancermedicalscience. There is space in the form for ‘Comments to the editor’ and ‘Comments to the author’, however this form can be supplemented by a fuller written report that justifies the decision as to why an articles does, or does not, meet ecancermedicalscience’s editorial criteria when required.
In assessing an article, reviewers are requested to keep in mind the following points relating to the scientific quality and significance of the research, and it’s accessibility to the journal's broad readership:
ecancermedicalscience articles are read by both specialists and non-specialists. The article should be clearly understandable to the non-specialist while the main body of the article should contain enough information for other researchers in the field to check the results presented.