Article Search
닫기

Journal of Cancer Prevention

Peer Review Process

Acceptance of a manuscript in JCP is determined through rigorous peer-reviewing process. After Editor-in-Chief and Executive editors assign an editor, the assigned editor send the manuscript to referees for peer-review. The assigned referees review the manuscript and their review results are reported to the Editor-in-Chief. Finally, Editor-in-Chief notify review results to the corresponding author(s). If there is any objection to the review results, corresponding author(s) can appeal within 60 days after being notified. Editor-in-Chief has the obligation to notify the results after one more review.

1. Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief checks whether a manuscript submitted online fulfills the submission guidelines; if it does, Associate Editors are appointed. The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision based on the reviewers’ comments collected by Associate Editor. If one or more reviewers have recommended that the submission be rejected, an additional reviewer can be appointed, or the submission can be rejected.

2. Associate Editor

The Associate Editor appoints two reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field, making a total of three reviewers. The Associate Editors will make the final decision by collecting the reviewers' recommendations and forwarding them to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief checks whether a manuscript submitted online fulfills the submission guidelines; if it does, Associate Editors are appointed.

3. Reviewer

The reviewers choose an appropriate course of action decision from the following list of options: ① Accept, ② Minor revisions, ③ Major revisions, ④ Reject. Decisions must reflect the "submission guidelines" and "guidelines for reviewers."

The role of the reviewer:
The key role of a reviewer to help the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor decide whether to publish a manuscript by commenting on its academic value. Thus, reviewers must read the paper thoroughly and give clear comments. The reviewer should avoid questioning answers that are already present in the manuscript, or criticizing insignificant content. If the manuscript presents a new concept or topic but needs major revisions, the reviewer should give detailed comments to assist with publication. When rejecting a submission, treat authors with courtesy.

4. Editor-in-Chief

The Associate Editors will make the final decision by collecting the reviewers' recommendations and forwarding them to the Editor-in-Chief. If one or more reviewers have recommended that the submission be rejected, an additional reviewer can be appointed, or the submission can be rejected.

5. Editorial Committee

The Editorial Committee reviews the results and decides whether or not to publish the article. If the Editorial Committee decides to accept the manuscript, it will be published after an English editing and correction process.—이것은 Editor-in-Cheief의 책무와 중복

All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed in the same way as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the decision process. Editors will not handle their own manuscripts although they are commissioned ones.

Table of review guideline
To ensure that reviews are objective, online review guidelines are used to assess various elements, including the title, introduction, methods, results, discussion, organization, abstract, and references.

1 Title Length and the substance of the title are both adequate.
2 Abstract Abstract is structured of 250 words or less and states the purpose of the study, methods, results, and conclusion.
3 Introduction Research objectives of the study are well-stated, specific, and significant.
4 Methods Study design including sample selection and material choice is appropriate.
Statistical method is pertinent to the study design.
5 Results Results are clearly stated and are presented in logical sequence.
6 Discussion The new and important aspects of the study are emphasized; the mechanism and/or possible explanation of the findings are well explored.
The results are well compared or contrasted with other relevant studies.
Implication of the study is well-presented.
7 Conclusion Conclusion is clearly stated. Conclusion is adequately supported by the date, and follows the logic of the full study.
8 References Style and format of the references meet the standards of the Journal.
Numbers of citation are appropriate.
9 Tables Information is displayed concisely and efficiently.
10 Figures/Illustrations Images are high quality and the legends are clearly and simply stated.
If any, please indicate figure(s)/photograph(s) that should be printed in colors.
11 Citation When to cite a table and figure from another source, the authors acknowledged their source in a note below the table or figure.
12 Ethics The authors noted the permission from the Ethical Committee or IRB, Ethics in the manuscript (only for original articles)

① The topic of the manuscript and/or the age of the participants are appropriate for the field of geriatrics.
② The title represents the content of the paper.
③ The introduction, methods, and results are presented in the right order.
④ The method is described in sufficient detail.
⑤ Eligibility and exclusion criteria are clearly stated.
⑥ The research objective and results are coherent.
⑦ The table and results are coherent.
⑧ An appropriate statistical method is used.
⑨ The order of results corresponds to the discussion.
⑩ The conclusion can be deduced from the research results (there is no jumping to conclusions).
⑪ The research limitations are noted.
⑫ Any there any ethical problems?
⑬ Is there unnecessary repetition (in particular, repetition in the introduction and discussion, or discussion and results)?
⑭ Is the length of the manuscript appropriate?

Consider Refer to other internationally used guidelines such as CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials), QUORUM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses), and STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) for different research designs.

Basic principles
Reviewers should approach the task of reviewing with sincerity, and submit their reviews in a timely fashion. If the reviewer believes that he or she is not the appropriate person to review a particular article, he or she must immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Fairness
A reviewer should treat all authors fairly. If there is any conflict of interest, immediately notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

Confidentiality
Except when asking for advice in relation to a review, the manuscript and its content should not be disclosed to a third party. The manuscript cannot be cited before publication. The review process is double blind, which means that a reviewer cannot contact the author. If a reviewer believes that contact with the author is necessary, then he or she should notify the Associate Editor or Editorial Committee.

JCP All Issue
Vol.26 No.1
March 30, 2021
eISSN 2288-3657
pISSN 2288-3649

Most KeyWord

Most Read

Most Downloaded