•  
  •  
 

Peer Reviewer Instructions

Advances in Cancer Education and Quality Improvement (ACE-QI) adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines on peer review.

Peer Review Model

All original research articles submitted to the journal are reviewed by at least two peer reviewers to determine their suitability for publication. ACE-QI uses a double-anonymized peer review process. Reviewers are not aware of the authors’ identities, and the reviewers’ names will not be shared with the authors. Anonymized reviews will appear in the editorial decision letter and will be accessible to the authors and other reviewers. Final decisions will be made by the editor-in-chief.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers should only agree to review a paper if it is within their area of expertise and they feel that they are qualified to provide an unbiased and comprehensive review.

Conflicts of Interest

ACE-QI adheres to the conflict of interest recommendations of the ICMJE. Conflicts of interest include but are not limited to a close personal or professional relationship with one or more authors (e.g., colleagues in the same department or with whom they have recently co-authored a paper) and papers whose publication (or lack of publication) would result in a significant personal, professional, or financial benefit (e.g., a paper by competing researchers). Reviewers should notify the journal if they have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest in reviewing a paper.

Confidentiality

Please note that all manuscripts submitted for review to the ACE-QI are considered privileged communications and are the authors’ private and confidential property, in accordance with COPE guidelines. Reviewers are expected to preserve the confidentiality of papers they review.

  • Do not share the manuscript, the authors’ identities, or your personal evaluations of the manuscript with others.
  • Do not use the authors’ ideas or findings to influence your own work.
  • Do not create duplicates of the article; please destroy all copies of the article after submitting your review.
  • If you have questions about an article that you have agreed to review, please contact the editors. Please do not include references to your identity in the body of the review.
  • Please obtain permission from the journal before asking a colleague (such as a mentored early career researcher) to review the article in addition to or in lieu of yourself. Note that these individuals must also agree to the journal’s peer review policies and should be acknowledged in the written comments submitted to the editor.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review requests and to submit their reviews by the agreed deadline. Please inform the journal if you experience an unforeseen delay.

Re-review

By agreeing to review a manuscript, you will also be expected to review any future revisions of the manuscript if necessary. 

Reviewer Comments

  • All reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, and polite. Include positive feedback as well as critiques.
  • If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, please clearly indicate this in your review.
  • Briefly summarize the paper and its findings.
  • Place the findings of the paper into the context of current knowledge and the existing literature.
  • Describe the significance of the work and state whether it is novel or confirmatory.
  • Address any issues with the paper and indicate whether they are major or minor (see the Article Evaluation Criteria below).
  • Do not use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools when writing or revising your review. Copying the authors’ unpublished text and data into such tools is a breach of confidentiality, as the tool may incorporate the content into its database.
  • General comments on grammar, style, or unclear or ambiguous writing are welcome. You may recommend that the paper be edited if the writing deficiencies are substantial.
  • Number your comments and cite page numbers when referencing specific issues in the paper.
  • Provide a recommendation to the editor:
    • Accept
    • Accept with minor revisions
    • Accept with major revisions
    • Reject

Article Evaluation Criteria

Ensure that all articles follow the appropriate EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines, if applicable.

Major Issues

  • Content
    • Is the paper suitable for the journal? Does it fit its designated article type (e.g., original research or case series)?
    • Is the article a valuable contribution to the field? Does it address an important issue or problem?
    • Do the authors describe novel concepts or approaches? Do they challenge existing paradigms or current thinking?
    • Are there any major flaws in the design or conduct of the study?
    • Do the authors provide sufficient evidence to support their case? Are the authors' conclusions supported by their findings?
    • Have the authors acknowledged and discussed all relevant studies and well-known theories or approaches?
    • Are there any ethical issues, such as plagiarism or figure manipulation? Please describe any ethical concerns in the cover letter, which is sent to the editor only, not the author. Do not share them with the authors.
  • Presentation
    • Is the paper complete and final?
    • Is the paper organized appropriately?
    • Is the paper written in clear, idiomatic English?
    • Are the figures and tables clear and understandable?

Minor Issues

  • Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors?
  • Are all of the tables and figures appropriate and correctly labeled?
  • Are there any inconsistencies between sections (such as between the abstract and text)?
  • Is there any unnecessary text that could be deleted or shortened?
  • Are there any unclear words or sentences?
  • Are the correct references cited? Are the citations excessive, inadequate, or biased?

Criteria for Specific Article Types

  • Brief Reports
    • Brief reports are concise descriptive summaries of new programs, innovations, or research projects. Topics often include development, implementation, outcomes, lessons learned, challenges encountered, and implications for other institutions.
    • Peer reviewers should evaluate brief reports on clarity, transparency, relevance, and usefulness to readers, rather than strict methodological rigor.
    • Brief Reports should follow a logical structure (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion [IMRAD] or Introduction, Project Description, Conclusion).
    • Maximum length: 1,500 words (excluding Title Page, Abstract, and References)
    • Abstract up to 250 words.
    • Up to five tables/figures
    • Up to ten references
  • Quality Improvement Articles
    • Quality improvement articles describe systematic, data driven efforts to improve healthcare processes, outcomes, safety, or efficiency within real world clinical settings.
    • QI manuscripts should be assessed for clarity of the problem and context, appropriateness of the intervention, rigor of measurement and analysis over time, and transparency about limitations and unintended consequences.
    • Reviewers are encouraged to use the SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines as a framework to evaluate completeness, methodological rigor, and relevance.
    • QI manuscripts follow the limitations as other original research manuscripts:
    • Maximum length: 5,000 words (excluding Title Page, Abstract, and References)
    • Structured abstract up to 400 words.
    • Up to eight total tables and figures; additional figures and tables can be submitted as supplemental material.
  • Viewpoints
    • Viewpoints are thoughtful perspectives, insights, or informed opinions. They may address emerging issues, challenges, innovations, or areas of debate and should provide a clear, well-supported perspective that is useful and thought-provoking for readers.
    • Peer reviewers should evaluate viewpoints on clarity, relevance, originality, and usefulness to readers, rather than strict methodological rigor.
    • Maximum length: 1,000 words (excluding Title Page, Abstract, and References)
  • Case Reports
    • Case reports describe individual cases or case series and should include an abstract, introduction/background, case description, discussion, and conclusion.
    • Maximum length: 2,500 words (excluding Title Page, Abstract, and References)
    • Structured abstract up to 250 words
    • Up to four total tables and figures
    • Up to twenty references.