We sincerely thank all those who have reviewed or will review manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Medical and Radiation Oncology (JMRO). Your expertise and thoughtful feedback not only help authors refine their work but also assist the editorial team in making informed publication decisions.

Preparing for Peer Review

Before beginning your review, all reviewers should read our Aims and Scope, Editorial Policies, and Editorial Process, to become familiar with the journal’s processes and guidelines.

For your convenience, we encourage reviewers to complete their evaluations online. Within your profile section, you will find the “Review Paper” option. If you prefer not to create an account, please contact us at office.jmedradonc@gmail.com, and we will be happy to assist you.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Standards

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest as soon as they receive an invitation to review a manuscript. Any financial, personal, academic, or other factor that could compromise the objectivity or integrity of the peer review process must be declared. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should notify the JMRO Editorial Office immediately and decline the review.

Potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

  • Affiliation with the same institution as one or more of the manuscript’s authors.
  • Professional collaboration with any of the authors within the past three years.
  • Personal relationships—whether positive or negative—with the authors or institutions involved in the manuscript.
  • Financial interests that could be affected by the publication of the paper.
  • Non-financial conflicts, such as religious, political, or ideological biases, that could influence the review.

Goals and Guidelines for Peer Review

The primary goal of peer review is to help authors improve their manuscript. We appreciate objective, constructive, and specific feedback presented professionally and respectfully.

JMRO follows a single anonymized review process, where reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities. Review reports remain anonymous and are not published with the articles, ensuring impartiality and fairness. Anywhere from one to four reviewers contribute to the final decision for each manuscript. Full details on the peer review process can be found on our Editorial Process page.

Maintaining confidentiality throughout and after the review process is essential, particularly regarding manuscript data and, in cases of single-blinded review, the authorship. All information contained in a manuscript under review must be treated as strictly confidential. Prior to publication of the manuscript, reviewers are prohibited from discussing, sharing, or disclosing in any format any research, details, or content that was revealed during peer review. Reviewers must also not use any unpublished data from a manuscript within their own research or share it with others. Once the review is completed, all downloaded copies of the manuscript should be permanently deleted.

Additionally, while suggesting references to your own work, or the work of your colleagues, is acceptable in some cases, please do so only when it is genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Structure of Peer-Review Feedback

Your review must include the following key elements:

  • Summary: Provide a brief overview of the manuscript, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses and its contribution to the field.
  • Major Comments: Address concerns related to study design, methodological rigor, data quality, or interpretation of results.
  • Minor Comments: Note any issues with clarity, figures, references, or other minor details.

Additionally, reviewers should assess specific sections of the manuscript as follows:

  • Title: Does it accurately reflect the research question and study type?
  • Abstract: Does it clearly state the study’s aim, methodology, and key findings? Are the reported results consistent with those in the main text? Is anything mentioned in the abstract that is not fully described in the manuscript?
  • Introduction: Does it present a clear research question and justify its significance? Does it cite the most relevant literature?
  • Methods: Are the methods appropriate and described in enough detail for reproducibility? Is ethics approval or informed consent mentioned when applicable?
  • Results: Are the results presented clearly and consistently with figures and tables? Are all analyses accounted for? Are any results included without corresponding methods?
  • Discussion: Does it answer the research question? Does it summarize the findings within a broader context? If there are conflicts with previous research, are potential explanations provided? Are limitations discussed? Does the interpretation align with the results, or is there unjustified extrapolation?
  • Conclusion: Does it accurately reflect the study’s results?

Ethical Standards and Misconduct

JMRO takes reviewer misconduct seriously. Any breaches of confidentiality, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential material, or intentional delays or inappropriate conduct will be investigated. In cases of severe misconduct, the matter will be escalated to the reviewer’s institution for further action.

By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers help ensure the integrity, fairness, and credibility of the peer review process at JMRO.