ONF Peer Review

May2022 ONF cover art

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 Oncology Nursing Forum is recruiting new reviewers for its review board. These valuable volunteers assist in ensuring that only scientifically sound information is printed. They also ensure that the publication continues to meet the educational needs of its readers.

Review board candidates must be master's or PhD prepared, as well as have publication experience. Those with expertise in various topic areas are sought; however, those with expertise in the following topics are particularly needed: genitourinary cancers; pediatrics; complementary therapies; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations; nutrition; physical activity; post-traumatic growth; and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Interested? Reach out to pubONF@ons.org with any questions, and complete an application today!

  • Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Tips for Review Comments
  • Complete 3–4 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.
  • 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?