The Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment (CJCPT) follows a rigorous Single-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. Under this review model, the identities of the reviewers remain confidential, while reviewer(s) are aware of the authors' identities.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to determine its relevance to the journal's scope, adherence to submission guidelines, ethical standards, and overall scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to authors without external review.

2. Editorial Evaluation

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to an Editor or Associate Editor with expertise in the relevant subject area. The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript and selects independent expert reviewers.

3. Single-Blind Peer Review

The manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

• Originality and significance of the research

• Scientific methodology and study design

• Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation

• Ethical compliance

• Relevance to the journal's scope

• Clarity and quality of presentation

• Validity of conclusions

Reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the review process.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Accept with Minor Revisions

• Major Revisions Required

• Reject

Reviewer comments and recommendations are carefully considered by the handling editor before a decision is made.

5. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors may be invited to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Where necessary, revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further assessment.

6. Final Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor based on reviewer reports, editorial evaluation, scientific merit, and ethical considerations.

7. Publication Process

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and final publication. Authors are provided with proofs for final approval before publication.

Review Timeline

The journal strives to provide a fair, thorough, and timely review process. The average peer-review period is 4–6 weeks, although review times may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts.

• Declare any conflicts of interest.

• Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.

• Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit and academic quality.

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a transparent, ethical, and unbiased peer-review process.