The Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment (CJCPT) relies on the expertise and dedication of reviewers to maintain the quality, integrity, and scientific value of published research. Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring that manuscripts meet the highest academic and ethical standards.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased evaluations.

• Assess manuscripts solely on scientific merit and scholarly quality.

• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts.

• Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

• Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.

• Provide detailed comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscript content with others without editorial permission.

• Use unpublished information for personal, professional, or financial gain.

• Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they have:

• Personal relationships with any author.

• Recent collaboration with the authors.

• Financial or institutional conflicts that may influence their judgment.

• Any circumstance that may compromise an objective review.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

1. Originality and Novelty

• Does the manuscript present new and significant findings?

• Does it contribute meaningfully to existing literature?

• Is the research question innovative and relevant?

2. Relevance to the Journal

• Is the topic within the scope of the journal?

• Will the findings be of interest to researchers, clinicians, and healthcare professionals in the field?

3. Scientific Quality and Methodology

• Are the objectives clearly stated?

• Is the study design appropriate?

• Are the methods adequately described and reproducible?

• Are statistical analyses appropriate and correctly applied?

• Are the results reliable and scientifically valid?

4. Ethical Considerations

• Has ethical approval been obtained where required?

• Are patient consent and confidentiality adequately addressed?

• Does the study comply with accepted ethical standards?

• Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, data fabrication, or research misconduct?

5. Results and Interpretation

• Are results clearly presented?

• Do the data support the conclusions?

• Are tables and figures necessary, accurate, and properly labeled?

• Have limitations been adequately discussed?

6. Literature Review and References

• Is the literature review current and relevant?

• Are key references included?

• Are references accurate and appropriately cited?

7. Language and Presentation

• Is the manuscript clearly written?

• Is the organization logical and coherent?

• Are grammar, terminology, and formatting acceptable?

Reviewer Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to provide:

Comments for Authors

• Clear and constructive feedback.
• Specific recommendations for improvement.
• Identification of strengths and weaknesses.
• Suggestions for additional analyses or references where appropriate.

Confidential Comments for Editors

• Concerns regarding ethics, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or scientific validity.

• Recommendations regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Recommendation Categories

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are requested to submit their review reports within the specified review period. The journal aims to complete the peer-review process within 4–6 weeks from the date of submission.

Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Reviewers should adhere to the principles of:

• Integrity

• Objectivity

• Fairness

• Confidentiality

• Professionalism

• Academic Responsibility

The Editorial Board sincerely appreciates the valuable contributions of reviewers in maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal.