Peer Review Process

To ensure the integrity, accuracy, and relevance of the research published, APJCR employs a meticulous peer review process. This process is designed to maintain the highest scientific rigor standards while being fair, transparent, and efficient.

 

1. Initial Manuscript Submission and Editorial Assessment

  • Manuscript Submission:
    Authors submit their manuscripts through the APJCR's online submission system. This system allows authors to provide all necessary details about their manuscript, including the title, abstract, keywords, author affiliations, and any conflicts of interest. The system also enables the submission of supplementary materials, such as raw data, figures, and tables.
  • Editorial Screening:
    Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial office. During this stage, the manuscript is checked for compliance with the journal's submission guidelines, including formatting, word count, and adherence to the journal's scope. The manuscript is also evaluated for originality, ensuring it does not duplicate previously published work.
  • Plagiarism Detection:
    The manuscript is subjected to plagiarism detection using specialized software. APJCR adheres to a strict plagiarism policy, allowing no more than 10% similarity with previously published works. Manuscripts that exceed this threshold are either rejected or returned to the authors for revision.
  • Preliminary Editorial Review:
    The assigned section editor performs a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's content, determining whether it meets the journal's scientific rigor, novelty, and relevance standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected at this stage, with constructive feedback provided to the authors.

 

2. Selection and Invitation of Peer Reviewers

  • Reviewer Identification:
    The section editor identifies suitable peer reviewers based on their expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected from APJCR's database of experts and external sources, ensuring that individuals with the necessary knowledge and experience review the manuscript.
  • Diversity and Expertise:
    To ensure a balanced and comprehensive review, the editor selects a diverse panel of reviewers, typically including at least two to three independent experts. The selection process also considers the geographic and institutional diversity of the reviewers to avoid bias.
  • Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality:
    Invited reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as financial ties, personal relationships, or competitive interests that might influence their objectivity. Reviewers must also agree to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process, refraining from sharing or discussing the manuscript with others.

 

3. The Double-Blind Peer Review Process

  • Anonymity in Review:
    APJCR employs a double-blind review process, where the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous. This process eliminates bias and ensures an impartial manuscript evaluation based solely on its scientific merit.
  • Originality and Innovation:
    Assessing whether the research provides new insights, challenges existing paradigms, or offers novel approaches to cancer research.
  • Scientific Rigor:
    Evaluating the robustness of the study design, methodology, data analysis, and the validity of the conclusions drawn.
  • Clarity and Structure:
    Review the manuscript's organization, including the clarity of the writing, the logical flow of arguments, and the quality of the figures and tables.
  • Relevance to the Journal's Scope:
    Determining whether the manuscript aligns with     APJCR's focus on cancer research in the Asia-Pacific region, addressing region-specific challenges or contributing to global understanding.
  • Ethical Standards:
    Ensuring that the research adheres to ethical guidelines, including the treatment of human or animal subjects, informed consent, and the disclosure of conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewer Reports:
    Reviewers provide detailed reports on the manuscript, including general assessments and specific comments on each section. Reviewers are encouraged to offer constructive feedback that can help the authors improve their work, even if the manuscript is recommended for rejection.
  • Recommendation for Editorial Decision:
    Accept without Revisions: The manuscript is ready for publication in its current form.
    Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small adjustments, such as clarifying language, adding references, or minor methodological improvements.
    Accept with Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires significant changes, such as revising the study design, reanalyzing data, or rewriting substantial sections.
    Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in APJCR, either due to fundamental flaws in the research or because it does not fit within the journal's scope.

 

4. Editorial Decision-Making

  • Synthesis of Reviewer Feedback:
    The section editor synthesizes the feedback from all reviewers to make an informed editorial decision. If there is a consensus among the reviewers, the decision is typically straightforward. However, if there are divergent opinions, the editor may consult additional reviewers or provide their evaluation to reach a final decision.
  • Communication with Authors:
    The editorial office communicates the decision to the authors, providing the full reviewer reports and the editor's comments. If revisions are required, authors are given clear instructions on how to address the reviewers' feedback, along with a deadline for resubmission.

 

5. Revision and Re-Evaluation

  • Author Revisions:
    Authors revise their manuscripts in response to the reviewer and editor's comments. A detailed response letter is usually required, explaining how each point of feedback has been addressed and where changes have been made in the manuscript.
  • Re-Review Process:
    Revised manuscripts that underwent major revisions are typically returned to the original reviewers for a second evaluation. This ensures that the revisions adequately address the concerns raised during the initial review. Sometimes, new reviewers may be invited if the original reviewers are unavailable.
  • Final Editorial Review:
    After re-review, the section editor conducts a final review of the manuscript to ensure that all revisions have been satisfactorily completed. If the manuscript meets all criteria, it is accepted for publication. The authors may be asked to make additional changes if further revisions are needed.

 

6. Acceptance, Proofing, and Publication

  • Final Acceptance:
    Once the manuscript is accepted, the authors are notified, and the manuscript moves into production. This includes formatting the manuscript according to the journal's style, typesetting, and preparing the final version for publication.
  • Proofing:
    Authors receive page proofs for final review. This stage allows authors to correct typographical errors, formatting issues, or minor inaccuracies. Major changes at this stage are generally not allowed unless necessary to correct significant errors.
  • Online Publication:
    After the proofs are approved, the manuscript is published online in the next available issue of APJCR. The article is made freely available under the journal's open-access policy, ensuring immediate access to readers worldwide.

 

7. Ethical Oversight and Handling Disputes

  • Addressing Ethical Concerns:
    If any ethical concerns or misconduct allegations arise during the review process, the editorial board will conduct a thorough investigation. APJCR follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to handle such cases, which may involve manuscript retraction or other corrective actions.
  • Resolving Disputes:
    In cases where there are disputes between reviewers and authors, or if there is a disagreement over the editorial decision, the editor may seek additional opinions or mediate between the parties to reach a fair resolution.

 

8. Reviewer Recognition and Accountability

  • Reviewer Acknowledgment:
    APJCR recognizes the critical role of reviewers in maintaining the journal's high standards. Reviewers who provide thorough, timely, and constructive feedback are acknowledged, and the journal may publicly recognize their contributions through annual awards or listings.
  • Review Quality Assurance:
    The journal monitors the quality of reviews and provides feedback to reviewers to help them improve their reviewing skills. Reviewers who consistently provide high-quality reviews may be invited to join the editorial board or take on senior reviewing roles.