From the editor’s desk

editorial From the editor’s desk What happens to a manuscript after submission? How does the editor reach a decision? What is the editor’s role during peer review? We take a look into the editorial process at Nature Cancer. O ne of the questions we are asked most frequently is how editors assess the manuscripts submitted to our journal to decide whether to peer review and eventually publish them. Even though prospective authors can learn about peer review and publication at our journal from the dedicated page of our website, here we provide deeper insight into the role of the editor in this process. Nature Cancer editors are responsible for different areas of cancer research covered by the journal’s broad scope. This allows each editor to continuously sharpen their knowledge in their specific fields by keeping up to date with the latest advances through the literature, conference attendance and frequent interactions with specific research communities. When a manuscript is submitted to the journal, the Chief Editor assigns it to the most appropriate editor on the basis of the specific areas for which they are responsible. This ensures that manuscripts benefit from the relevant editorial expertise and from consistency in the editorial decision-making process. However, Nature Cancer editors do not make decisions in a vacuum. Instead, the handling editor of the manuscript assesses it in detail and discusses it with the editorial team, typically with at least one other colleague, but frequently with more, including with the Chief Editor for all major editorial decisions. Among the editorial considerations in deciding whether to send a manuscript for formal peer review are the level of advance it represents in light of the published literature, whether the dataset is sufficiently developed to support the main conclusions, the translational and clinical relevance of the reported findings and whether they would be of interest to the journal’s broad audience of cancer researchers. Given that Nature Cancer covers the breadth of the cancer field from preclinical to translational and clinical research, depending on their specific area, different manuscripts provide different types of an advance—for instance, mechanistic, technical, translational or clinical—and could be developed to a different level of experimental and analytical depth, employing a wide variety of methodologies, models and datasets. Nature Cancer editors evaluate each study on its own merits, taking such considerations into account and aiming for consistency and fairness in their decisions. When a manuscript is sent for peer review, the handling editor communicates with the authors about the editorial decision, relevant journal policies and additional information required to proceed, and selects the referees for the study. Our main consideration for this crucial step of the process is to engage referees whose expertise can cover all major aspects of the manuscript, but who will also provide constructive comments in a timely manner. Nature Cancer papers typically have two to four referees, depending on how focused or expansive a study is conceptually and technically, with the majority of papers being reviewed by three experts. Authors are welcome to provide suggestions for potential referees, although we are not obliged to use them, and may also exclude up to three researchers from the peer-review process, a request that we are committed to honoring. Referee anonymity is guaranteed throughout the peer-review and publication process, unless referees decide to sign their remarks to the authors or to be acknowledged in the final published version of the manuscript (a note our readers can find in the ‘Additional information’ section of all Nature Cancer papers). Authors may also remain anonymous to the referees by opting into double-blind peer review when they submit their manuscripts. In such cases, the editors will refrain from transmitting author names to referees during the peer review, but the authors themselves are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript files are made fully anonymous. The handling editor provides guidance to the referees on the points they should consider when reviewing the manuscript, such as the relevant published literature, the robustness of the data presented, the degree to which they support the relevant conclusions, and experiments that could strengthen or expand the study. Once all referee reports have been returned, the handling editor assesses them in detail and discusses them with the editorial team, including the Chief Editor, to determine whether the manuscript warrants further consideration at our journal. At this stage, we critically evaluate the comments of the referees in light of their specific expertise, the main focus of the manuscript and the journal’s and field’s standards for the particular topic. In cases for which we invite Nature Cancer | VOL 2 | August 2021 | 773–774 | www.nature.com/natcancer a revision, we synthesize the referee points to provide authors with a list of priorities that they must address for their paper to be considered further, and wherever applicable, a list of requests that we are overruling—for instance, those we deem as not essential for the main message of the paper. These editorially compiled prioritized and overruled points are also transmitted to the referees, so that all parties are aware of where the editor has set the bar for considering a revised version. When inviting a revision, the handling editor also ensures that the authors are aware of recommended revision timeframes, journal policies and additional information and documents they must provide on resubmission. When a revision is submitted, the handling editor assesses it in detail to determine whether the revisions warrant re-review, in which case the paper is sent back to the original referees. A core policy of the Nature journals is that acceptance to review a manuscript equals acceptance to review all its subsequent versions, as this helps ensure a fair process without shifting of expectations in different rounds of review. If an original referee is not available, we engage another researcher with similar expertise and guide them on the specific points they should assess. When reviewing revisions, we ask that referees avoid raising new points on data that had been reviewed previously, and we editorially overrule on any such issues raised, unless they pertain to a truly crucial aspect of the study that would be problematic unless addressed. Once a manuscript has been revised to a degree deemed satisfactory by referees and editors, the handling editor offers publication of the study and guides the authors through the final revisions needed to comply with editorial considerations, such as those pertaining to formatting and policy. When declining a manuscript before or after peer review, Nature Cancer editors provide a rationale for our negative decision. In cases in wh (...truncated)