All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office to determine whether they comply with the journal's submission requirements, ethical standards, and reporting guidelines. Manuscripts that do not conform to the journal's policies may be returned to the authors for technical revision before editorial assessment.

Following technical screening, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor evaluates each manuscript for its scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope. Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope or are considered unlikely to meet the journal's publication standards may be declined without external peer review (editorial rejection). This process enables authors to receive a timely decision and avoids unnecessary delays.

Whenever possible, authors will receive the initial editorial decision within 14 days of submission. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers through the journal's double-blind peer-review process. Additional statistical or methodological review may be requested when appropriate.

The Editorial Office aims to provide the first peer-review decision within 3 weeks of submission. Editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, reject with invitation to resubmit, or rejection. Final publication decisions are made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor based on the reviewers' recommendations and the scientific merit of the manuscript.

Following acceptance, manuscripts proceed to production and are normally published online within 10-15 working days. Authors will receive electronic page proofs, which should be returned within 10 working days. Proof corrections should be limited to typographical or production errors.

Editorial Policy

Central Asian Cancer Sciences is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, editorial integrity, and publication ethics. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

The journal's editorial policies govern all stages of the publication process, from manuscript submission and editorial assessment to peer review, publication, and post-publication oversight. These policies are regularly reviewed and updated to reflect international best practices in biomedical publishing and research integrity.

Editorial Oversight

The editorial process of Central Asian Cancer Sciences is overseen by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office, with the support of Associate Editors, Section Editors, and expert reviewers.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to evaluate their suitability for the journal's aims and scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and reporting standards. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's publication criteria may be rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts selected for further consideration undergo external peer review. Throughout the editorial and production process, editors continue to assess manuscripts for scientific accuracy, consistency, completeness, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical standards before publication.

Original Research Articles

All original research articles submitted to Central Asian Cancer Sciences undergo rigorous editorial assessment and external peer review. Manuscripts considered suitable for publication are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Statistical review may be undertaken when appropriate.

Peer review supports the editorial evaluation by providing independent expert assessment of the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and clinical or scientific significance of the submitted work. Reviewer comments are shared anonymously with authors unless reviewers choose to disclose their identity, where permitted by the journal's peer review model.

Editors consider reviewers' recommendations when making editorial decisions; however, the final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when further expert evaluation is considered necessary.

Peer Review

The credibility of the scientific literature published in Central Asian Cancer Sciences depends on the integrity, expertise, and professionalism of its peer review process. The journal is committed to a rigorous, fair, independent, and timely peer review system that ensures the publication of high-quality research and maintains the integrity of the scientific record.

Peer review is conducted in partnership between authors, reviewers, editors, and the Editorial Office. It provides independent scientific evaluation, improves the quality of submitted manuscripts, and supports editors in making informed editorial decisions.

This policy describes the journal's peer review process, the responsibilities of reviewers, authors, and editors, as well as the journal's principles regarding diversity, equity and inclusion, the use of artificial intelligence (AI), and reviewer development.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Central Asian Cancer Sciences undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. During this stage, editors evaluate whether the manuscript falls within the journal's aims and scope and meets the required standards of scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and reporting transparency.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are submitted to a double-blind external peer review, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Original research articles are generally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scientific or clinical expertise. When appropriate, manuscripts may also undergo statistical review or additional assessment by specialists in methodology, pathology, radiology, artificial intelligence, health economics, bioinformatics, or other relevant disciplines.

Peer review provides expert advice to editors; however, the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

Selection of Peer Reviewers

Editors select reviewers on the basis of their scientific expertise, publication record, methodological knowledge, clinical experience, and independence from the submitted work.

Whenever possible, reviewers are selected from different institutions and geographical regions to ensure balanced, objective, and comprehensive evaluation. Editors seek complementary expertise among reviewers, particularly for multidisciplinary research.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must disclose any actual or potential financial, professional, academic, or personal conflicts of interest that could influence their assessment. Reviewers with significant conflicts of interest should decline the invitation.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful evaluations.

Reviewer reports should assess, where appropriate:

originality and scientific importance;

methodological quality;

statistical analysis;

ethical conduct of the study;

completeness and transparency of reporting;

validity of the results and conclusions;

relevance to clinical practice or cancer research.

Reviewers submit comments intended for the authors together with confidential comments for the editors when necessary. Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers' recommendations together with the independent assessment of the handling editor.

When major revisions are requested, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for additional evaluation.

Following provisional acceptance, manuscripts undergo scientific editing, technical editing, copyediting, proofreading, and production before publication.

Reviewer reports are communicated to authors when editorial decisions are issued. If a manuscript is rejected following external peer review, reviewer comments are provided to assist authors in improving their work for future submission.

Strengths and Limitations of Peer Review

Peer review is an essential component of scientific publishing. Independent expert evaluation helps improve methodological quality, strengthen scientific interpretation, identify limitations, enhance reporting transparency, and place new findings within the context of existing evidence.

Nevertheless, peer review does not independently reproduce experiments or validate underlying datasets. Editorial decisions therefore rely on the integrity of authors, the expertise of reviewers, and the professional judgment of editors.

The journal follows internationally recognized recommendations for peer review, including the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) https://publicationethics.org/ and the ethical guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)https://publicationethics.org/.