For reviewers
For Reviewers
What a review of a colorectal cancer manuscript should examine, and the terms on which the journal asks for it.
- Journal
- Journal of Colon And Rectal Cancer
- ISSN
- 2471-7061
- Confidentiality
- Required
- Files
- Delete after review
Before you accept
Three questions to settle first
01
Do you have the expertise?
Accept only where you can judge the substance of the work. Where you can review part of a manuscript — the statistics but not the surgery, say — tell the editor, so the review can be complemented rather than over-read.
02
Do you have a competing interest?
Declare financial and non-financial interests before accepting, including recent collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, competing work in preparation, and any personal relationship with an author. The editor decides whether it precludes review.
03
Can you review it in reasonable time?
Decline promptly if you cannot. A fast decline is more useful to the authors than a slow review, and the editor can approach someone else the same day.
The review
What to examine
- Whether the claims match the evidence
- The central test. Assess whether the data presented support the conclusions drawn, and say specifically where a claim runs ahead of what was measured. A conclusion that needs to be softened is a revision, not a rejection.
- Methods and analysis
- Study design, participant selection, comparators, outcome definitions, handling of missing data, and whether the analysis answers the question asked. Ask whether a described method could be repeated from the text alone.
- Clinical and pathological reporting
- Staging, pathology grading, surgical approach, and the treatment detail a reader would need to interpret the result.
- Reporting completeness
- Whether the reporting guideline appropriate to the design has been followed, and whether ethics approval, consent, trial registration and data availability are documented.
- Statistical reporting
- Effect sizes, confidence intervals, exact p values, adjustment for multiple comparisons, and whether the analysis plan was set in advance where that matters.
- Literature and originality
- Whether relevant prior work is cited fairly, including work that disagrees, and whether the contribution is stated accurately.
Do not require a manuscript to demonstrate novelty, clinical benefit, prospective validation or a particular study design unless the manuscript's own claims require it. A well-conducted negative, descriptive or methodological study is a legitimate contribution.
Writing it
A review the authors can act on
- Open with a short summary of what the study did, so the editor can see how you read it.
- Separate points that must be addressed from suggestions the authors may take or leave.
- Number your points and cite the page, section or figure each one refers to.
- Say what would resolve a concern, not only that a concern exists.
- Address the work, never the authors.
Confidentiality and files
A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use its content in your own work before publication.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Artificial intelligence
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Model and integrity
The model, and when to raise a concern
Review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Your recommendation advises the editor; the decision is the editor's. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Raising an integrity concern
Where you suspect duplicated or manipulated images, undisclosed overlap with published work, fabricated data, or an ethics or consent problem, raise it with the editor in the confidential comments rather than in the comments to authors, and set out what you observed.
Editorial Policies sets out how the journal investigates such concerns.
Next