CAM-Cancer peer review process
Each summary is reviewed by two independent reviewers, the respective Responsible Editor and the Senior Editor, and is approved by the Executive Committee. If required, the summary is revised by CAM-Cancer’s professional proofreader.
Task of scientific reviewers
The goal is to ensure that CAM summaries are prepared in accordance with the standards outlined in this manual.
- The Senior Editor sends the CAM summary to the respective Responsible Editor. If major issues are identified at this stage, the summary needs to be revised before peer review. Otherwise the summary is sent to the two appointed reviewers.
- The Responsible Editor checks the evaluation and recommendations provided by the two independent reviewers, and prepares the feedback for the author. Direct discussions between editors, reviewers and authors can take place.
- The author amends the summary; the modified version has to be approved by the reviewers and/or Responsible Editor.
- Once the document has been approved by the reviewers, the responsible editor and the senior editor, it is sent to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee can raisemajorconcerns within 48 hours; if any major concerns are raised they need to be addressed by the author and editors.
- After that, the document is published on the website at www.cam-cancer.org
The reviewers use the checklist. This checklist was designed in order to allow an in-depth and structured assessment by the reviewer. The checklist assesses four quality criteria:
- completeness and comprehensiveness of the document,
The reviewers go through the checklist and score each individual item. They make exhaustive comments and suggestions in order to help the author improve the CAM summary. Reviewers should differentiate between the scientific quality and the writing style of the document. The scientific quality is the priority of this review. The writing style should be addressed only if the text is confusing or not understandable. Summaries requiring English-language editing are sent to CAM-Cancer’s proofreader.
Comments should be inserted in the electronic version of the checklist and sent to the Scientific Co-ordinator. Specific comments can also be inserted directly into the summary.
The Responsible Editor ensures that there is consistency between reviewers’ comments. In case of major disagreement between the author and the reviewers or between the reviewers themselves, the Responsible Editor will try to reach consensus. If no agreement can be found, the Senior Editor and/or the Executive Committee shall make a decision.