CJON Peer Review
Peer reviewers are a critical component of the publication process, ensuring quality and relevancy of articles accepted for print as well as assisting in author development.
All reviews are completed online only via Editorial Manager, so access to a computer and internet is required. Already a reviewer? Review full instructions for completing your review.
Get Involved
The Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing (CJON) is recruiting new reviewers for its review board. These valuable volunteers ensure the quality and relevancy of articles accepted for publication, as well as assist with author development.
Review board candidates are experienced clinical oncology nurses; master’s degree or higher is the preferred (but not required) academic background. Publication experience is required. CJON reviewer expertise covers broad clinical oncology nursing competencies, advocacy, and influence (e.g., prevention, clinical assessment, treatment, symptom management, clinical models for patient care delivery, clinical operations, psychosocial support of patients and caregivers).
Interested? Reach out to pubCJON@ons.org with any questions, and complete an application today!
- Reviewer Responsibilities
- Tips for Review Comments
- Complete 3–6 reviews annually.
- Complete appropriate forms.
- ONS antitrust (initially and annually)
- ONS conflict of interest (initially and annually)
- Contact information (update as needed)
- Areas of expertise (initially and as requested)
- Provide reviews that are constructive and supportive.
- Complete reviews according to the deadline provided, usually 2–3 weeks.
- Maintain confidentiality of all content. Manuscripts under review cannot be duplicated, quoted, or distributed. Any manuscript files should be destroyed after review completion.
Navigate through the interactive infographic below to learn tips and tricks on the peer review process.
- Avoid rewriting, correcting grammar and punctuation, or correcting reference styles.
- Instead, identify the major strengths and weaknesses and provide specific suggestions for improvement.
- Comment on the clarity of the content as well as its presentation.
- Do the title and abstract represent the work?
- Are reference materials interpreted correctly?
- Do tables and figures support the work?
- Discuss the appropriateness and accuracy of the information.
- Are the references pertinent, timely, balanced, and evidence based?