Reviewer Guidelines
Standards for peer review in CNS cancer research publication.
Excellence in Scientific Evaluation
Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining JBSC publication quality. These guidelines ensure consistent, constructive reviews advancing neuro-oncology science.
Scientific Validity
Assess methodology, data presentation, and interpretation accuracy in CNS tumor studies.
Clinical Significance
Evaluate contribution to neuro-oncology knowledge and patient care improvement.
Originality
Assess novelty of findings and importance to the CNS cancer field.
Provide specific, actionable comments helping authors improve. Identify strengths alongside weaknesses. Frame feedback professionally.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share content. Report conflicts of interest promptly.
Complete reviews within agreed timeframes, typically 2-3 weeks. Notify editorial office of delays promptly.
Evaluate neuroimaging quality, resolution, and clinical interpretation. Check that imaging supports manuscript conclusions.
- Accept: Ready for publication with minor corrections
- Minor Revision: Small improvements, no re-review required
- Major Revision: Substantial changes, re-review warranted
- Reject: Fundamental issues preventing publication
Organize reviews with numbered comments for easy reference. Separate major concerns from minor suggestions with clear rationale.
Report suspected misconduct. Decline invitations when conflicts exist. Provide unbiased evaluation based solely on merit.
When reviewing revised manuscripts, focus on whether authors adequately addressed previous concerns. Check that requested changes were implemented appropriately.
For manuscripts including imaging data, assess quality, resolution, and interpretation accuracy. Verify images support conclusions.
