Editors Guidelines

Consistent editorial practices to support colorectal cancer research.

• Assess scope alignment and clinical relevance
• Select reviewers with colorectal oncology expertise
• Evaluate methodological rigor and transparency
• Provide clear decision rationale to authors
• Uphold ethical standards and conflict policies

Editors use consistent criteria to maintain rigor and fairness.

• Confirm scope alignment and clinical relevance
• Select reviewers with colorectal oncology expertise
• Check for conflicts of interest
• Ensure reporting standards are met
• Provide clear decision rationale for authors
• Track reviewer timelines and responsiveness
• Escalate ethical concerns promptly
• Encourage data transparency and reproducibility
• Support constructive peer review culture
• Document key decisions for accountability

Editors evaluate scope fit, clinical relevance, and reporting completeness before assigning reviewers. This step protects reviewer time and ensures submissions meet journal standards.

• Confirm colorectal cancer focus and clear objectives
• Check ethics approvals and trial registration
• Assess whether methods support stated conclusions
• Verify data availability statements

Select reviewers with clinical and methodological expertise relevant to colon or rectal cancer. Avoid conflicts of interest and ensure balanced perspectives.

• Aim for at least two independent reviewers
• Balance surgical, medical, and translational expertise
• Document reasons for reviewer selection

Provide decision letters that summarize key strengths, limitations, and required revisions. Clear guidance improves author responses and accelerates publication timelines.

Editors should verify ethics approvals, consent statements, and trial registration. Concerns about misconduct should be escalated to the editorial office promptly.

• Check for duplicate publication or plagiarism
• Confirm conflicts of interest are disclosed
• Request clarifications when ethics details are missing

Editors should align decisions with journal scope and clinical impact standards. Consistent decisions improve author confidence and maintain journal quality.

• Reference the journal scope in decision letters
• Use consistent language for major revisions
• Summarize key reasons for rejection clearly

These reminders help maintain consistent handling of submissions.

• Document key reasons for decisions clearly
• Track reviewer timeliness and follow up
• Escalate ethics concerns to the office
• Ensure scope fit before peer review

Clear decisions reduce revision cycles and improve author response.

• Separate major and minor revisions
• Reference reviewer points when needed
• Confirm required reporting elements
• Provide a clear recommendation

Consistent communication helps authors respond effectively.

• Summarize key decision reasons
• Provide clear timelines for revisions