Mathews Journal of Cancer Science

Mathews Journal of Cancer Science Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Process

Mathews Open Access Journals follows double blind peer review process. In this we do not reveal author names, affiliations to the reviewer and vice versa. We adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), code of conduct, and best practice guidelines (http://publicationethics.org). We strive to ensure that the peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript for publication in the journal are based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to remit of the journal. The process also involves strictly no plagiarism or fabrication of the data and parallel submissions.

Responsibilities

Being a reviewer you are accountable to take the responsibility of maintaining confidentiality of ideas that have been presented in the papers assigned to review. Focus your evaluation on merits and demerits of the article; assess the correctness, accuracy, clarity, and innovation of the research. Never reveal the assigned paper's results or videos/images or any of the supplementary material to non-reviewers.

The reviewers are given ample time for the review and submission of comments to the editorial office. Reviewers’ evaluations play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication.

Ethical Issues

• The reviewer should be honest, transparent. Should not be biased in the decision, and exact analysis of the research.

• After receiving the paper for any further assistance or clarifications you need to contact only the editorial office and the confidentiality of the paper has to be maintained.

• You must never ask anyone to review a portion of paper without editor's permission and also must never contact the author of the paper directly.

• Final decision in accepting/ rejecting of the manuscript is solely decided by Chief-Editor of the journal.

• The reviewer can also inform the editor regarding suspected duplicate publication, plagiarism, or any ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research that has be done by author.