Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal's editorial office undergo a mandatory Double-Blind Peer Review, which ensures objectivity and impartiality of the evaluation. Reviewers receive the article without the author's name being specified, and authors remain unaware of the reviewer assigned to their work.

An electronic version of the manuscript should be sent via email to the editorial office (oncology_kiev@ukr.net) or submitted online through the OJS platform on the journal's website (https://nasu-periodicals.org.ua/index.php/oncology).

Internal Review of the Manuscript

  1. Initial Screening: Upon receipt, manuscripts undergo a preliminary internal review by the Executive Editor to ensure the material aligns with the journal's scope. The manuscript is screened for plagiarism, the use of AI, and to verify that the material has not been previously published elsewhere. If any of these issues are identified, the paper is not eligible for peer review, and the author is notified of the rejection.
  2. Formatting Review: Works that align with the journal's scope and represent original research but do not meet the formatting requirements are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.

External Peer Review

  1. Provided all formatting requirements are met and the initial screening is successful, the manuscript is sent for external peer review.
  2. The Editorial Board selects two independent experts who hold an advanced academic degree and are specialists in the relevant field. Reviewers are chosen to avoid any conflicts of interest. Members of the Editorial Board may also be involved as reviewers, depending on the research field and the prevalence of the topic.
  3. Reviewers must promptly notify the Editorial Board of any potential conflicts of interest.
  4. Depending on the submission method (via email or online via the journal's website), the communication and review forms vary: either as a Word document via email or through the OJS platform.
  5. To maintain the Double-Blind Peer Review process, the Executive Editor prepares an anonymous version of the manuscript, removing all information regarding the authors and their respective institutions.
  6. The standard timeframe for review established by the Editorial Board is 2 weeks.
  7. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following:

Scientific Novelty: Disclosure of previously unknown mechanisms; new original facts; confirmation of known principles using new models or methods; or lack of novelty.

Problem Statement: Clear and specific; partially reflects the content; or inconsistent with the content.

Methodological Level: High/modern and task-appropriate; routine but adequate methods; outdated or low-information methods; insufficient methodological support; or methods inappropriate for the task.

Presentation of Materials: High level of text, table, and illustration formatting; results presented with errors; lack of proper statistical analysis; or inconclusive results.

Discussion of Results: Logical with references to current literature; adequate to the results obtained; insufficiently argued; or discussion is absent/inconsistent with the data.

Bibliography: Contains sources primarily from the last 1–3 years; 3–5 years old; older than 5 years; or contains irrelevant/broken links.

  1. Upon completion, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

Revisions Required

Accept Submission

Resubmit for Review

Submit to Another Journal

Decline Submission

  1. In the event of conflicting conclusions between two reviewers, the manuscript is sent to a third independent expert for evaluation.
  2. Editors act as intermediaries. All reviewer comments are conveyed to the author by the Executive Editor.
  3. If "Revisions Required" is the outcome, the article is sent back to the author with specific comments for improvement.
  4. After revision, the article is sent for re-review to verify the changes with the reviewer.
  5. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or the Editorial Board) based on the reviewers' recommendations and the quality of the author's revisions. Once all requirements are met, the status is updated to "Accepted for Publication."