Reviewer Guidelines

Structured guidance for peer review in colorectal oncology.

• Clinical relevance and therapeutic impact
• Methodological rigor and statistical validity
• Transparency in reporting and data availability
• Ethics, consent, and patient protection
• Clarity of conclusions and limitations

High quality reviews improve patient care and research translation.

• Assess clinical relevance and methodological rigor
• Evaluate staging and pathology reporting
• Check statistical analysis and outcome validity
• Review data transparency and availability
• Provide constructive, actionable feedback
• Identify potential bias or confounding
• Confirm conclusions align with results
• Report ethical concerns if present
• Maintain confidentiality and professionalism
• Submit reviews within agreed timelines

Reviewers assess clinical relevance, methodological rigor, and the validity of conclusions. Comments should focus on how the work advances colorectal cancer care.

• Study design and appropriateness of endpoints
• Clarity of methods and statistical analyses
• Transparency of data and reporting
• Alignment with clinical practice or guidelines

Provide balanced feedback with major and minor points, referencing specific sections and suggesting actionable improvements. Clear rationale helps authors respond effectively.

• Summarize the study in one or two sentences
• Identify major strengths and limitations
• Highlight missing reporting elements
• Offer prioritized, practical revisions

Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and declare conflicts of interest. Do not use unpublished data for personal research.

Treat manuscripts as confidential documents and avoid sharing or citing unpublished data. Report any concerns about ethics or integrity to the editor.

• Declare conflicts before accepting a review
• Avoid direct contact with authors
• Provide unbiased, evidence based feedback

High quality reviews address study design, clinical relevance, and reporting completeness. Focus on specific, evidence based comments rather than general impressions.

• Comment on sample size and statistical validity
• Note missing outcomes or follow up details
• Suggest improvements for clarity and transparency

Use this checklist to ensure clear, actionable, and fair reviews.

• Summarize the study and main findings
• Assess relevance to colorectal cancer care
• Evaluate methods and statistical validity
• Identify missing data or reporting gaps
• Suggest specific, actionable revisions

Constructive tone improves author engagement and revision quality.

• Use specific references to manuscript sections
• Provide clear rationale for critiques
• Balance strengths with improvement areas
• Suggest practical next steps

Consistent structure helps editors compare reviews.

• Use headings for major and minor points
• State your recommendation clearly