Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing

Review Guidelines

As a reminder, any conflict of interest, suspicion of duplicate publication, fabrication of data, or plagiarism must be reported immediately to the editor. In addition, please note that all communications regarding this manuscript are privileged.

These guidelines have been prepared as a mental checklist to guide you in addressing all areas in your evaluation. Your comments about the manuscript and a compilation of your responses to the review questions below should be typed into the "Comments to the Author" area of the screen; your comments for the editor should be typed into the "Confidential Comments to the Editor" area of the screen. When entering your comments about the manuscript, please be sure to refer to the manuscript line numbers and when entering answers/comments from the review guidelines/questions, please refer to the question number.

1. On a scale of 1-5 (1 = not at all; 5 = especially), how do you rate the appropriateness of the manuscript content to the level and interests of nurses in clinical practice?

2. What contribution does this manuscript make?

Is this information new? Yes or No

Is this information important? Yes or No

3. Is the title representative of the paper? Yes or No

4. Does the abstract summarize the manuscript in a concise manner? Yes or No

5. Are the ideas in this paper clearly expressed? Yes or No

Is the flow logical? Yes or No

6.Is the information correct, comprehensive, and current? Yes or No

Are the calculations and measures (e.g., lab values, drug doses) correct? Yes or No

Are the interpretations/conclusions sound? Yes or No

7. Is the style of writing appropriate for nurses who provide direct patient care? Yes or No

Is the voice of the author objective and unbiased? Yes or No

8.Is there any geographic, practice setting, or level of practice bias? Yes or No

9.Should any sections of the manuscript be expanded, condensed, or omitted? Yes or No

10.Are technical terms correct and adequately explained? Yes or No

11.Are procedures or techniques adequately described/explained? Yes or No

Are they evidence based? Yes or No

12.Do the tables and figures supplement and complement the text or are they repetitive or difficult to interpret? Please explain.

13.In which of the following categories do the references need improving?

  • Pertinence
  • Use of primary sources
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Proper format
  • Appropriate balance of nursing references
  • Current

Do you have any additional reference suggestions?

14.Would this topic be of interest to a lay audience? Yes or No

15. What are the major strengths of this manuscript?

16. What are the major weaknesses of this manuscript?