We are thanking all those who accepted and/or will accept to review the manuscripts submitted for publication to JMRO. Your generous involvement is helping the authors to improve their knowledge and skills and it is also helping the editors to take the final decision.
Journal of Medical and Radiation Oncology use double blinded peer review an only as an exception will choose single or triple blinded peer review. At least one external reviewer will contribute to the final decision.
The peer review process is detailed here.
We are encouraging the reviewers to perform the online review of the manuscripts. In the profile section, you will find “Review Paper” option. In case you do not want to create an account on our website, and if you did not receive the word version of the Peer-Review Checklist, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org and we will be happy to assist you further.
General suggestions for peer-review
- Please remember that the purpose is to assist the authors in improving the paper
- Both authors and editors appreciate objective, constructive, and specific comments, made in a professional and polite manner
- Reading the whole paper before starting (including appendices) will help you correctly evaluate the paper and keep into account the journal’s guidelines and specific reporting checklists (CONSORT for randomised trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, SANRA for narrative reviews, CARE for case reports)
- Confidentiality during and after the peer review is expected regarding the manuscript data in all cases and the authorship (for single blinded review)
- Suggesting references to your own work is accepted, but only when it is truly necessary
Overall structure of the Peer-review feedback:
- Summary – a short overview of the paper and personal opinion on its contribution to the field, mentioning manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses
- Major comments – related to study design, quality or interpretation of the results
- Minor comments – referring to confusing sentences, figures, references, or other details
Specific evaluation of article sections
- Does it reflect the research question and study type?
- Does it mention the aim of the study and main details on material and method?
- Are the results corresponding with those reported in the main text?
- Is there anything in the abstract anything which was not described in the main paper?
- Is there a logical correspondence between the results and conclusion?
- Is there a research question and is its importance justified coherently?
- Does it cite the most relevant previously published literature?
- Are they appropriate for answering the research question and re they described clearly enough to permit repeating the research?
- Is ethics approval reported and/or informed consent reported, if necessary?
- Are any results presented clearly and matching with figures and tables?
- Are they reported for all experiments/analyses described in the Methods?
- Are any results reported for which methods have not been mentioned?
- Has the research question been answered?
- Is there a summary of the findings and their meaning in a broader context?
- Is there a conflict between currently presented results and previously published data? If so, is there any potential explanation proposed?
- If the potential limitations are not mentioned, please point them out.
- Does the interpretation correspond to the results or is there an unjustified extrapolation?
- Is the conclusion accurately reflecting the results?