Slide Journal of Current Oncology and Medical Sciences (JCOMS)

 Instructions for reviewers

Aims and scope

Journal of Current Oncology and Medical Sciences (JCOMS) is an Open Access, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original articles, review articles, case reports, and all types of articles in all branches of oncological sciences and also general medicine which is related to oncology, cancer research, and diseases with inflammation and inflammatory origination.

JCOMS is a part of Zabansaraye Parsian Novin Mehr Institute (Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance) and supported strongly by this institute. 

This guide is written to help you peer review manuscripts submitted to JCOMS. Reading this should answer most of the queries you have and guide you in completing a peer review report in the most thorough and prompt way to ensure the paper is properly reviewed and published quickly. If you have any further queries, please submit them to our Editorial Offices.

JCOMS tries hard to process papers as thoroughly, fairly and rapidly as possible. As a result, peer reviewers are asked to submit their comments within 10 business days.

Why is peer review important?

– Peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations are an essential guide to inform the editor’s decision on a manuscript. Peer review ensures that manuscripts receive unbiased critique and expert feedback, allowing authors to improve their manuscript and therefore high-quality scientific research and reviews to be published. It also helps the readers to trust the scientific integrity of the article and to make informed decisions where peer reviewer comments are available.

– After receiving a request to peer review it is essential that peer reviewers respond in a timely fashion, particularly if they cannot do the review, to avoid unnecessarily delaying the process.

– Peer reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest, and possess sufficient knowledge in the field to perform a thorough assessment of the manuscript. You can find further information on competing interests here.

– Peer reviewers must keep any information regarding the identity of the authors and the content of the manuscript confidential.

– Peer review comments should be objective and constructive without being of a hostile or derogatory nature.

Writing a Peer Review

Peer reviewers should assess the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as well as look at the statistical power of the study if relevant.

In the first part of their report, peer reviewers should answer the questions assessing the quality and content of the manuscript and scientific methods. These will guide the peer reviewer to reflect on points that might need to be addressed by the author(s).

Peer reviewers must ensure that they answer the following questions in their report:

– In general, is the paper easy to follow and does it have a logical flow?
– Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the work?
– Are the results novel? Does the study provide an advance in the field?
– Did the study gain ethical approval appropriate to the country in which the research was performed if human or animal subjects were involved and is it stated in the manuscript?
– Does the paper raise any ethical concerns?
– Are the methods clear and replicable?
– Do all the results presented match the methods described?
– Is the statistical analysis appropriate to the study design?
– Are the controls appropriate for the study design?
– Is the data clearly and appropriately presented using clear language?
– Did the authors make the underlying data available to the readers?
– Do the conclusions correlate to the results found?
– Are the figures and tables clear and legible?
– Are images appropriate for the article? If there are any concerns about duplication or manipulation in images, please raise potential issues by email or in your report.
– Does the paper use appropriate references in the correct style to promote understanding of the content?
– Does the English grammar, punctuation or spelling need to be corrected?
– Peer reviewers should then provide the Editor-in-Chief with a recommendation regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication by detailing the quality of the manuscript.

The peer reviewer must explain their recommendation by writing a short summary describing their assessment of the manuscript. They should then provide numbered comments detailing points to be addressed by the author(s). All requested major revisions should be clearly outlined. Minor revisions should also be mentioned where the peer reviewer feels these will improve the clarity and purpose of the manuscript.

Please refer to instructions for authors to view the format of the journal.