Editor Guidelines

Operating principles for editors of the Journal of Cancer Genetics and Biomarkers (JCGB).

• Ensure fair, timely, and constructive peer review.
• Safeguard ethical standards, data transparency, and reporting quality.
• Promote diversity in reviewer selection and author outreach.
• Communicate clearly with authors, reviewers, and the editorial office.
• Support strategic initiatives (special issues, themed series, mentorship).

1. Scope Alignment: Confirm that the manuscript fits JCGB’s focus on cancer genetics, biomarkers, and translational oncology. Redirect to other OA Pub titles when necessary.
2. Ethics & Compliance: Check for IRB/IACUC approvals, consent statements, trial registration, and data availability notes.
3. Reporting Guidelines: Ensure authors have submitted relevant checklists (CONSORT, REMARK, PRISMA, etc.). Request missing documentation promptly.
4. Technical Quality: Assess structure, language, and figure resolution. Suggest pre-review language editing via the JCGB Language Editing Service if readability impedes evaluation.
5. Conflict Screening: Review author disclosures; recuse yourself if conflicts arise.

• Choose at least two reviewers with complementary expertise (e.g., genomics and biostatistics).
• Prioritise diversity in geography, gender, and career stage to reduce bias.
• Use ManuscriptZone’s reviewer database and cross-check for conflicts (recent collaborations, same institution, competing interests).
• Invite backup reviewers to maintain timelines when primary reviewers decline.
• Encourage reviewers to use JCGB’s structured feedback template.

• Start with a clear outcome: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject.
• Summarise key points from reviewers and your own assessment.
• Distinguish essential revisions from optional recommendations.
• Flag ethical or data transparency issues that must be resolved.
• Maintain a respectful, encouraging tone even when declining submissions.

• Confirm that authors addressed each reviewer comment in a response letter.
• Check new data, figures, or analyses for consistency and proper labelling.
• Verify that updated methods or results remain within journal scope.
• Decide whether re-review is necessary (major methodological changes or contentious issues).
• Ensure revised manuscripts include tracked changes or highlighted edits.

• Report suspected misconduct (plagiarism, image manipulation, data fabrication) to the Editor-in-Chief and ethics committee.
• Use cross-checking tools as needed; request raw data or original images if doubts arise.
• Follow COPE workflows for disputes or corrections.
• Maintain confidentiality of submissions, reviewer identities, and editorial deliberations.

• Seek reviews from experts representing varied backgrounds and geographic regions.
• Encourage submissions from underrepresented groups by highlighting waivers and mentorship opportunities.
• Monitor decision patterns for inadvertent bias; discuss concerns with the editorial office.

• Verify that datasets and code are accessible as promised in the data availability statement.
• Encourage authors to use community standards (e.g., MIAME, REMARK, STARD).
• Request additional documentation for AI/ML studies (model cards, training data provenance, bias evaluation).
• Ensure authors disclose use of generative AI in manuscript preparation.

• Coordinate with guest editors to maintain review quality and timeline discipline.
• Serve as liaison between the special issue team and JCGB core editors.
• Ensure special issue manuscripts adhere to standard peer review and ethical policies.
• Provide summary reports of submission volume, acceptance rates, and reviewer performance.

• Respond to author and reviewer inquiries within 48 hours.
• Use ManuscriptZone messaging for record keeping; follow up via email if urgent.
• Document key decisions in the editorial log for transparency.
• Escalate complex cases (e.g., dual-use research, legal challenges) to the Editor-in-Chief promptly.

• Handle 2–4 manuscripts per month, depending on discipline volume.
• Attend quarterly editorial meetings (virtual) to discuss policy updates and journal strategy.
• Participate in annual training on research integrity, AI governance, and reviewer development.
• Track your metrics (turnaround, acceptance, reviewer diversity) via dashboards provided by JCGB.

• Offer feedback to reviewers on the clarity and constructiveness of their reports.
• Nominate high-performing reviewers for JCGB recognition and potential editorial roles.
• Encourage early-career reviewers to complete JCGB’s reviewer training modules.

• If authors contest a decision, evaluate their appeal objectively and consult an uninvolved editor.
• Document all correspondence related to appeals for accountability.
• Remain open to corrections when valid methodological or ethical concerns arise.

• Editorial coordinators assist with reviewer invitations, deadline reminders, and production handoffs—leverage their support.
• Share suggestions for policy updates or community engagement with [email protected].
• Collaborate on webinars, podcasts, or conference sessions that highlight JCGB content.

• Provide three months’ notice if stepping down to ensure smooth transition.
• Nominate potential successors and share your reviewer network with the editorial office.
• Complete outstanding manuscripts or arrange handover with agreed timelines.

• Quarterly Masterclasses: Interactive sessions on AI governance, clinical trial interpretation, and data curation.
• Biannual Policy Summits: Roundtables with funders, regulators, and patient advocates to anticipate publishing shifts.
• Reviewer Feedback Clinics: Workshops analysing anonymised reports to refine clarity, tone, and actionable guidance.
• Leadership Tracks: Mentorship for associate editors aspiring to section editor or editor-in-chief roles.

Editors receive calendar invites and recordings through JCGB’s internal portal. Attendance is strongly encouraged; participation is noted in annual performance reviews.

JCGB provides dashboards summarising your editorial activity. Key indicators include:

• Average time from assignment to first decision.
• Reviewer acceptance and completion rates.
• Reviewer diversity (geography, gender, career stage).
• Post-publication impact of handled manuscripts (citations, altmetrics).

Editors should review dashboards monthly and collaborate with the office to address bottlenecks or training needs. Consistently high performers are recognised in annual reports.

Learn from anonymised, real-world scenarios curated by JCGB:

• Complex Conflict Resolution: Managing a dispute between competing biomarker companies while preserving impartiality.
• Data Integrity Investigation: Coordinating with authors to correct image duplication before publication.
• Rapid Response Workflow: Handling urgent oncology findings with accelerated review while maintaining quality.

Access the case library via the editor portal. Discuss takeaways during quarterly meetings to foster shared learning.

• Refer manuscripts better suited to sister journals (e.g., precision therapeutics, immunology) to optimise author experience.
• Participate in cross-journal initiatives such as reviewer exchanges and joint special issues.
• Share policy insights to harmonise standards across the OA Pub network.

We revisit editor guidance quarterly and rely on your lived experience to keep it relevant, actionable, and aligned with the fast-moving cancer genomics landscape.

Last updated: September 2025. JCGB may update editor guidelines as publishing standards evolve.