PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

The Oncologist abides by a policy of anonymous peer review.  As a single-blind review process, authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The Senior and Section Editors select external reviewers from a database of experts, many of whom are Editorial Board members. These reviewers provide comments for the Editors and the authors, as well as a publication recommendation. Upon receiving the comments, the Section Editor responsible for the manuscript makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Editors often seek manuscript opinions from one another and/or discuss decisions. The Editor-in-Chief must endorse all manuscript decisions.

Acceptance of manuscripts is based on originality and importance to the field as assessed by the Editors. Manuscripts are reviewed anonymously by the Editorial Board with ad hoc assistance of external reviewers. Publication decisions are made by the Editorial Board. See the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals,” published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and available at http://www.icmje.org/index.html for further information.

Based on editorial judgment, some submissions are rejected initially without external review. If review is required, authors may expect to learn of rejection or acceptance in approximately 4 weeks, depending on the turnaround time of reviews.

Upon completion of review, the Editor-in-Chief’s decision will be e-mailed to the corresponding author, along with the reviewers’ comments.  The author will receive one of the following decisions:

Reject: The editors did not select your manuscript for publication. Many factors contribute to acceptance including, but not limited to, the following:

• Importance of the research to the field of oncology
• Originality of the work
• Quality of the study
• Priority of the work to The Oncologist and its readership

If an author disagrees with the editorial decision, cordial inquiry is invited. The response must be timely and include a detailed rebuttal.

Major Revision: The editors believe that your article contained information of potential importance but a number of major issues were raised. If you believe that you can address the issues raised, the editors would be willing to reconsider your manuscript, but cannot guarantee acceptance, particularly if you cannot address the concerns.

Minor Revision: The editors found your manuscript potentially acceptable for publication provided you make some minor adjustments.

Acceptance: The editors selected your manuscript for publication. Additional information will be provided regarding embargo policies and the production process.