For editors
For Editors
What the journal asks of an editor handling a manuscript, from the first scope decision to the decision letter.
- Journal
- Journal of Colon And Rectal Cancer
- ISSN
- 2471-7061
- Reviewers
- Normally at least two
- Guidance
- COPE
The handling sequence
From assignment to decision
01
Assess scope first
Decide whether the question belongs to the journal before anything else. Subject fit and evidential strength are separate judgments, and a manuscript outside scope should be returned quickly rather than sent for review. The boundary is set out on the Aims and Scope page.
02
Declare and manage conflicts
Decline the handling of any manuscript where you have a competing interest, including work from your own institution, recent collaborators or a direct competitor. Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions; those manuscripts are handled independently.
03
Screen before review
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
04
Select reviewers
Choose reviewers for subject expertise and methodological fit, avoid reviewers with a competing interest, and seek a range of perspectives rather than a single school of thought. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
05
Read the reviews, do not count them
Weigh the substance of each review against the manuscript. A decision follows from the argument and the evidence, not from a tally of recommendations, and a single well-argued review may outweigh two superficial ones.
06
Write the decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. State the reasoning plainly enough that the authors can act on it.
Model and confidentiality
Running the review
- Review model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Double-blind handling
- When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
- Confidentiality
- A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, cite it, or use its content before publication, and do not discuss it outside the editorial process.
- Artificial intelligence
- Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to an externally hosted AI tool where confidentiality cannot be assured. This applies to all unapproved externally hosted tools, not only public ones.
- Timeliness
- Keep authors informed when a manuscript is taking longer than expected, and chase reviewers rather than letting a manuscript sit.
Independence and integrity
What an editor cannot be asked to do
Independence
Decisions remain independent of fees, membership, editorial roles and paid services. Editors are not shown the payment status of a manuscript, and no membership, fee, institutional relationship or commercial consideration may be weighed in a decision.
An editor cannot waive peer review, ethics approval, consent documentation or trial registration for any manuscript, including their own field or their own collaborators' work.
Raising an integrity concern
Where a manuscript or a published article raises a concern about data, images, authorship, consent or overlap, escalate it to the editorial office rather than resolving it alone. The journal follows COPE guidance, and the outcome may be a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction.
Editorial Policies sets out the correction and retraction process in full.
Next