Peer Review Policy

Overview

The Journal of Carcinogenesis Research (JCR) upholds rigorous academic standards by employing a double-blind peer review system. This ensures the quality, credibility, and scientific integrity of all published research by facilitating fair, unbiased, and expert evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo preliminary assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editorial board members. This screening ensures alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, adherence to ethical standards, and compliance with formatting requirements. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's criteria may be returned without peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JCR follows a double-blind review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are anonymized to ensure objectivity.

  • Anonymization: Author identities are removed from manuscripts prior to review. Reviewer identities are kept confidential throughout and after the review process.
  • Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are chosen based on their subject matter expertise, academic credentials, and prior reviewing experience. Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers.
  • Evaluation Criteria: Manuscripts are reviewed based on originality, scientific validity, significance to the field, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and compliance with ethical research standards.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review. If a conflict exists, an alternative reviewer is appointed.

Decision-Making Process

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editors, based on reviewers' evaluations and, where necessary, additional consultation. Possible editorial outcomes include:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets all publication standards and requires minimal or no revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: Minor changes are requested before final acceptance.
  • Major Revisions: Substantial modifications are needed. The revised manuscript is subject to further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific or editorial standards.

Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response addressing all reviewer comments. Depending on the extent of changes, revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original or new reviewers.

Appeal Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal letter explaining the grounds for the appeal. Appeals are reviewed independently by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult additional reviewers or editorial board members before issuing a final decision.

Ethical Considerations

JCR strictly adheres to the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism, data falsification, and unethical research practices. Confirmed ethical breaches result in immediate rejection or retraction.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibilities

All manuscripts and peer review communications are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing, quoting, or using any unpublished material for personal or professional gain. They are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback that contributes to the improvement of the manuscript.

Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific merit. Editors and reviewers maintain full independence from any commercial, institutional, or political influence to preserve the integrity and transparency of the peer review process.

By maintaining these high standards, the Journal of Carcinogenesis Research ensures a robust, ethical, and credible peer review system that advances scientific knowledge in the field of carcinogenesis.