Reviewer Guidelines

Supporting rigorous, fair, and clinically meaningful peer review in hematology and oncology.

Peer reviewers are essential to the quality and credibility of the Journal of Hematology and Oncology Research (JHOR). Your review helps authors improve clarity, strengthens clinical relevance, and ensures that published research meets high scientific standards. We appreciate your time and expertise and ask reviewers to focus on constructive, objective, and evidence based feedback.

Please confirm that you have adequate expertise, time, and no conflicts of interest. If the manuscript falls outside your specialty or you cannot provide a timely review, decline promptly so we can assign another reviewer.

• Confirm that there is no financial, institutional, or personal conflict with the authors.
• Ensure that you can submit a review within the requested timeframe.
• Maintain confidentiality and do not share the manuscript with others.

Assess whether the manuscript meaningfully advances knowledge beyond existing literature. The introduction should define the clinical gap, and the discussion should position results within current evidence. Studies that repeat known findings without new insight may not be suitable for publication.

• Are key prior studies cited and accurately represented?
• Does the manuscript clarify why this study was needed now?
• Is the contribution incremental, confirmatory, or truly novel?

Transparent methods enable other clinicians and researchers to validate findings. Encourage authors to provide data availability statements and describe how data can be accessed or why sharing is restricted.

• Are analytic methods described clearly enough to replicate?
• Is code or statistical workflow described when relevant?
• Are missing data and sensitivity analyses explained?

JHOR emphasizes outcomes and patient benefit. Consider whether the manuscript addresses clinical relevance, safety, and quality of life. Trials and real world evidence should report adverse events, treatment tolerability, and meaningful endpoints for patients and clinicians.

• Are outcomes clinically significant rather than only statistically significant?
• Does the discussion explain how findings could change practice or policy?
• Are limitations acknowledged, especially around generalizability?

Hematology and oncology outcomes vary by access to care, socioeconomic factors, and geography. Encourage authors to discuss equity considerations and patient experience when appropriate. Studies that include diverse populations and clear reporting of demographic data strengthen the evidence base.

• Are disparities or access barriers acknowledged?
• Is the population representative of the clinical setting?
• Are patient reported outcomes or quality of life measures included?

Reviewers should be alert to ethical issues and integrity concerns. If you identify potential problems, share them privately with the editor.

• Is there a clear ethics approval statement and informed consent description?
• For trials, is the study registered with an appropriate registry?
• Are there signs of plagiarism, image manipulation, or duplicate publication?

Encourage adherence to reporting standards to improve clarity and reproducibility.

• CONSORT for randomized trials.
• STROBE for observational studies.
• PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta analyses.
• CARE for case reports.
• ARRIVE for animal studies.

Check whether data availability statements are present and whether datasets are accessible when appropriate.

In your confidential comments, summarize your overall assessment and provide a recommendation. Highlight critical issues that influence acceptability, and identify elements that are strong or novel.

• Accept: the manuscript is rigorous and clinically meaningful.
• Minor revision: findings are solid but need limited changes.
• Major revision: substantial changes are required before acceptance.
• Reject: the manuscript is out of scope or methodologically unsound.

Flag concerns that could undermine validity, safety, or integrity. Provide specific examples and explain why the issue is critical so the editor can act appropriately.

• Inconsistent numbers across abstract, tables, and text.
• Claims of efficacy without adequate comparator or control.
• Selective reporting of outcomes or unexplained changes to endpoints.
• Lack of ethics approval or unclear patient consent.
• Overreliance on surrogate endpoints without clinical justification.

Use confidential comments to share sensitive concerns such as potential misconduct, plagiarism, or patient privacy risks.

If you review a revision, check whether the authors addressed each comment and whether new analyses are sound. Confirm that revisions improve clarity, outcomes reporting, and clinical interpretation. If major concerns remain unresolved, inform the editor directly.

All manuscripts are confidential. Do not share files, data, or ideas from the review process. If you need to consult a colleague for technical advice, request permission from the editor and maintain confidentiality.

Do not use unpublished data or concepts for your own work. If you suspect dual submission, data reuse without disclosure, or privacy risks, alert the editor in confidential comments.

Thoughtful reviews strengthen clinical practice and contribute to professional development. JHOR values reviewers who provide timely, specific, and balanced feedback. Keep notes for your own learning, but avoid storing manuscript files after the review is complete.

Your careful review helps JHOR publish trustworthy evidence for hematology and oncology communities. We value thoughtful, balanced reviews that improve patient outcomes and strengthen scientific progress.

Upholding excellence in oncology and hematology peer review. Last updated: January 2026.