The Asian Journal of Current Research in Clinical Cancer upholds a rigorous double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential to one another throughout the evaluation process. This carefully structured, multi-stage system safeguards the objectivity, integrity, and scientific rigor of every article we publish.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original works, not under consideration elsewhere, and not previously published. The journal conducts its submission, review, and production workflow through a secure digital platform.
The Review Process
|
Stage |
Description |
Key Focus and Responsibility |
|
1. Initial Editorial Pre-Check |
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or a designated Associate Editor performs a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript. |
This stage centers on the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope, its compliance with ethical research standards (including ethical approvals and informed consent), and an initial screening for plagiarism. Submissions that fall short of these standards are subject to immediate desk rejection. |
|
2. Subject Expert Assignment & Reviewer Selection |
Manuscripts that clear the pre-check are forwarded to a qualified Associate Editor (or International Editor) serving as the subject-matter expert. This editor conducts a thorough internal assessment of the study's methodology and scientific foundation. |
The Associate Editor confirms the manuscript's suitability and takes responsibility for identifying and inviting at least two independent external reviewers whose expertise closely aligns with the manuscript's subject matter. |
|
3. External Peer Review |
At least two qualified external reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript, examining its scientific quality, methodological soundness, originality, and clarity of presentation. |
Reviewer reports and recommendations are submitted to the Associate Editor and the EIC. The identities of both reviewers and authors remain strictly confidential throughout this stage. |
|
4. Final Decision-Making |
The Editor-in-Chief renders the final decision, weighing the Associate Editor's recommendation alongside the detailed reports submitted by external reviewers. |
Acceptance requires at least two favorable reviews. Should reviewers' recommendations diverge — one favoring acceptance and another rejection — a third independent expert is consulted to resolve the disagreement. Decisions grounded in a single review are reserved for rare, exceptional circumstances in which securing a second qualified reviewer proves genuinely unattainable (occurring in fewer than 5% of all reviewed submissions), and any such decision must be thoroughly documented and justified by the EIC. |
Editorial Decisions and Revision
Accept after Minor Revisions: Authors are asked to address all reviewer comments within the specified timeframe.
Reconsider after Major Revisions: Authors must provide point-by-point responses to each reviewer comment. As a general rule, up to two rounds of substantial revision are permitted.
Reject and Encourage Resubmission: Manuscripts requiring extensive additional experiments or further data collection are declined, with an invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript once the necessary work has been completed.
Reject: Manuscripts marked by serious scientific flaws, significant ethical breaches, or an absence of original contribution are rejected without the possibility of resubmission.
Every reviewer comment must be addressed individually and in full. Where authors disagree with a reviewer's critique, they are expected to provide a clear and well-reasoned justification in their response letter.
Review Duration and Complaints Policy
Duration: The review process generally spans one to two months, depending on reviewer responsiveness and the complexity of the manuscript under evaluation.
Complaints Policy: The journal is committed to resolving all complaints in a fair and constructive manner. Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision may do so by contacting the Editor-in-Chief directly. Complaints concerning journal policies, procedures, or editorial conduct are acknowledged within six working days, with progress updates shared every two weeks until a final resolution is reached. The Editor-in-Chief's ruling on any complaint is considered final.
Becoming a Reviewer: Qualified experts wishing to contribute their expertise as peer reviewers are warmly invited to reach out to our editorial team at [email protected]
