Shortcuts

1. Submission Overview
2. Submission Preparation
3. Research and Publication Ethics
4. Authorship
5. Reviewers Suggestions and Exclusions
6. Editors and Journal Staff as Authors
7. Policy of the Use of AI and AI-assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing
8. Conflict of Interests
9. Editorial Process
10. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
11. Contact Us

 

1. Submission Overview

Before you decide to publish with Eurasian Journal of Medicine and Oncology (EJMO), please read the following items carefully and make sure that you are well aware of Editorial Policies and the following requirements.

1.1 Topic Suitability

The topic of the manuscript must fit the scope of the journal. Please refer to Aims and Scope for more information.

1.2 Paper Integrity

Authors should carefully check their manuscripts for text similarity rate, proportion of AI-generated content, and all figures in both the Main Text and the Supporting Information. The cover letter must confirm that there is no image duplication, manipulation, or visual plagiarism. In addition, authors are required to provide a text similarity report, an AI-writing detection report, and an image screening report with supporting documentation (certificate). Preferred text similarity and AI-writing detection reports: https://www.ithenticate.com, and image screening report: https://imagetwin.ai.

1.3 Open Access and Copyright

The journal adopts Gold Open Access publishing model and distributes content under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyright is retained by authors. Please make sure that you are well aware of these policies.

1.4 Publication Fees

The publication fee for each submission is $1650. There are no additional charges based on color, length, figures, or other elements. AccScience Publishing (ASP) provides expense deductions for authors as appropriate. For more details, please refer to ASP Article Processing Charges.

1.5 Language Editing

All submissions are required to be presented clearly and cohesively in good English. Authors whose first language is not English are advised to have their manuscripts checked or edited by a native English speaker before submission to ensure the high quality of expression. A well-organized manuscript in good English would make the peer review more smoothly and efficiently. 

1.6 Work Funded by the National Institutes of Health

If an accepted manuscript was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH), the authors may inform Editors of the NIH funding number. The Editors are able to deposit the paper to the NIH Manuscript Submission System on behalf of the authors.

 

2. Submission Preparation

2.1 Cover Letter

A cover letter is required to be submitted accompanying each manuscript. It should be concise and explain why the study is significant, why it fits the scope of the journal, why it would be attractive to readers, etc.
Here are the guidelines for a cover letter for reference:
In the first paragraph: include the title and type (e.g., Original Research Article, Review, Case Report, etc.) of the manuscript, a brief on the background of the study, the question the author sought to answer and why;
In the second paragraph: concisely explain what was done, the main findings and why they are significant;
In the third paragraph: indicate why the manuscript fits the Aims and Scope of the journal, and why it would be attractive to readers;
In the fourth paragraph: confirm that the manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration of any other journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agreed on its submission to the journal. Journal's specific requirements have been met if any.
If the manuscript is contributed to a Special Issue, please also mention it in the cover letter.
If the manuscript was presented partly or entirely at a conference, the author should clearly state the background information of the event, including the conference name, time and place in the cover letter.

Please note that authors shall not copy and paste Abstract in Cover letter. Authors shall provide highlights (research innovation), Scopus ID weblink, author biography (corresponding author and representative publications),

Authors are encouraged to upload reviewers’ comments of other rejected journals as a Related file.

2.2 Types of Publications

The journal publishes Original Research Article, Review, Perspective Article, Case Report, Letter, Editorial, etc. There is no restriction on the number of figures, tables and references, provided that the manuscript is concise and comprehensive. For more details about paper type, please refer to the following table.

Manuscript Type	Definition	Word Limit	Abstract	Keywords	Main Text Structure	References
Original Research Article	An Original Research Article describes detailed results from novel research. All findings are extensively discussed.	No less than 5000	Structured abstract. No more than 250 words.	3-8 keywords	The main text should include four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion.	Approximately 40 references
Review	A Review Article summarizes the literature on previous studies. It usually does not present any new information on a subject.	No less than 5000	Structured abstract. No more than 250 words.	3-8 keywords	The main text may consist of several sections with unfixed section titles. We suggest that the author include an "Introduction" section at the beginning, several sections with unfixed titles in the middle part, and a "Conclusion" section in the end.	Approximately 70 references (recent three years > 25%)
Editorial	An Editorial is a short article describing news about the journal or opinions of senior Editors or the publisher.	1200 max	None required.	None required	/	Approximately 5 references
Letter to Editor	A Letter to Editor is usually an open post-publication review of a paper from its readers, often critical of some aspect of a published paper. Controversial papers often attract numerous Letters to Editor.	1500 max	None required.	None required.	/	No more than 20 references
Perspective	A Perspective provides personal points of view on the state-of-the-art of a specific area of knowledge and its future prospects. Links to areas of intense current research focus can also be made. The emphasis should be on a personal assessment rather than a comprehensive, critical review. However, comments should be put into the context of existing literature. Perspectives are usually invited by the Editors.	2000 max	Unstructured abstract. No more than 150 words.	3-8 keywords	/	Approximately 10 references
Communication	A Communication is a brief disclosure of a significant new  concept or application and will be considered on an accelerated schedule.	2000-3000	Unstructured abstract. 100-150 words.	3-8 keywords	/	Approximately  20 references
Commentary	A Commentary is a short academic article in which the author expresses his or her opinion or commentary on a specific research paper, a trend in the field, a theoretical viewpoint, or a scientific issue.	1000-3000	Unstructured abstract. 100-150 words.	3-8 keywords	/	Approximately  5 references

 

2.3 Manuscript Structure

In addition to referring to the Instructions for Authors set out in the following, we also recommend using our templates to prepare the submission files.

Templates:

- Title page & back matter template   Download

- Article template for Original Research Article   Download

- Article template for Review Article and Perspective Article   Download

2.3.1 Title Page & Back Matter

2.3.1.1 Title

The title of the manuscript should be concise, specific and relevant, with no more than 16 words if possible. When gene or protein names are included, the abbreviated name rather than full name should be used.

2.3.1.2 Authors and Affiliations

Authors' full names should be listed. The initials of middle names can be provided. Institutional addresses and email addresses for all authors should be listed. At least one author should be designated as corresponding author. The corresponding author must provide their institutional email address, or indicate the institutional email address of the corresponding author on the title page. In addition, corresponding authors are suggested to provide their Open Researcher and Contributor ID and Scopus ID upon submission. Please note that any change to authorship is not allowed after manuscript acceptance.

2.3.1.3 Highlihgts

The author is required to provide Highlights (4-5 items, each not exceeding 100 characters including spaces and punctuation marks), which are used to summarize the innovation or main findings of the article

2.3.1.4 Abstract

The abstract should provide the context or background for the study and should state the study's purpose, basic procedures (selection of study participants, settings, measurements, analytical methods), main findings (giving specific effect sizes and their statistical and clinical significance, if possible), and principal conclusions. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations, note important limitations, and not overinterpret findings. Clinical trial abstracts should include items that the CONSORT group has identified as essential. It is not allowed to contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the manuscript, or exaggerate the main conclusions. Citations should not be included in the abstract.

2.3.1.5 Keywords

Three to eight keywords should be provided, which are specific to the article, yet reasonably common within the subject discipline. Keywords shall be full name rather than abbreviation.

2.3.1.6 Acknowledgments

This is an optional section where authors can acknowledge people and/or institutions that provided non-financial support and/or helped with the research and/or preparation of the manuscript. People to be acknowledged include those who do not qualify as authors. Examples of non-financial support include externally-supplied equipment/biological sources, writing assistance, administrative support, and contributions from non-authors. Authors are responsible for obtaining the permission for acknowledging people and/or institutions to be included in this list. If none of the above is pertinent, state “Not applicable”.

2.3.1.7 Funding

Authors should declare all financial support and sources that were used to perform the research, analysis, and/or article publication. Financial support is generally in the form of grants, royalties, consulting fees and others. Organizations that provide the grants and grant numbers should be declared. If the study is not involved with this issue, state "None" in this section. Please note funding can not be added/deleted after manuscript revision.

2.3.1.8 Conflict of Interest

At the time of submission, authors must declare any (potential) conflicts or competing interests with any institutes, organizations or agencies that might influence the integrity of results or objective interpretation of their submitted works. For more information, see our Conflict of Interest policy. State “The authors declare they have no competing interests” or words to that effect if the authors do not have anything to declare.

2.3.1.9 Authors' Contributions

Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, or the creation of new software used in the work, or have drafted the work or substantively revised it. We encourage authors to use Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in describing each contributor’s specific contribution to the scholarly output in the Author Contributions section. Authorship change is not allowed unless a authorship change form is submitted after manuscript revision, which may also lead to rejection.

Below shows a sample Author Contributions section written based on the CRediT:

Conceptualization: Ali Jackson, Helen Meyer
Investigation: Ali Jackson, Tom Lewis-Hans, Han Xiang
Methodology: Dolores Hans
Formal analysis: Han Xiang
Writing – original draft: Ali Jackson
Writing – review & editing: Helen Meyer, Joshua O’Brien

If an article is single-authored, please include "The author contributed solely to the article." in this section.

2.3.1.10 Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Clinical studies involving humans must be registered in the national medical research registration and filing information system and provide the clinical trial registration number.

Research involving human subjects, human material or human data must be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by an appropriate ethics committee. An informed consent to participate in the study should also be obtained from participants, or their parents or legal guardians for children under 18. A statement detailing the name of the ethics committee (including the reference number where appropriate) and the informed consent obtained must appear in the manuscripts reporting such research. The patient's face and all identifiable features must be covered; any information that could identify the patient's identity (such as date of birth, specific address, unique case characteristics, etc.) must be anonymized; the written informed consent form must be properly preserved for future reference.

Studies involving animals and cell lines must include a statement on ethical approval. More information is available at Editorial Policies.

If the manuscript does not involve such issue, please state "Not applicable" in this section. 

2.3.1.11 Consent for Publication

If human subjects were involved, state what form of consent (e.g., written and/or verbal) and whether or not permission was obtained from each of the subjects to publish their data and/or images. Efforts must be made by the authors to at least mask or conceal any identifying information of the patients that appear in writing or within photographs. If consent taking was not performed when human subjects were involved, provide a justification herein.

If none of the above is pertinent, state “Not applicable”.

2.3.1.12 Availability of Data

Authors shall provide raw data as Suppl file or other Cloud storage platform (e.g. Nut Cloud) for original articles, meta-analysis, and systematic review. For basic research, authors shall provide all raw data (including n = ?).

In order to maintain the integrity, transparency and reproducibility of research records, authors should include this section in their manuscripts, detailing where the data supporting their findings can be found. Data can be deposited into data repositories or published as supplementary information in the journal. Authors who cannot share their data should state that the data will not be shared and explain it. If a manuscript does not involve such issue, please state "Not applicable" in this section.

2.3.1.13 Further Disclosure

This section is reserved to inform the readers and editors of a few aspects:

(i) Part of or the entire set of findings have been presented in a conference, academic meeting, congress, etc.

(ii) The paper has been uploaded to or deposited in a preprint server (provide name of preprint server and associated accession number or DOI of the preprint.

(iii) For any paid software mentioned in the article, the author must state that they have the right to use it (e.g., SPSS, Endnote).

(iv) During the preparation of this work, the authors used [AI Tool Name and Version] in order to [Specific use]. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

2.3.2 Main Text

Manuscripts of different types are structured with different sections of content. Please refer to "Types of Manuscripts" to make sure which sections should be included in the manuscripts.

2.3.2.1 Introduction

The introduction should contain background that puts the manuscript into context, allow readers to understand why the study is important, include a brief review of key literature, and conclude with a brief statement of the overall aim of the work and a comment about whether that aim was achieved. Relevant controversies or disagreements in the field should be introduced as well.

2.3.2.2 Methods

Methods should contain sufficient details to allow others to fully replicate the study. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described or appropriately cited. Experimental participants selected, the drugs and chemicals used, the statistical methods taken, and the computer software used should be identified precisely. Statistical terms, abbreviations, and all symbols used should be defined clearly. Protocol documents for clinical trials, observational studies, and other non-laboratory investigations may be uploaded as supplementary materials.

2.3.2.3 Results

This section contains the findings of the study. Results of statistical analysis should also be included either as text or as tables or figures if appropriate. Authors should emphasize and summarize only the most important observations. Data on all primary and secondary outcomes identified in the section Methods should also be provided. Extra or supplementary materials and technical details can be placed in supplementary documents.

2.3.2.4 Discussion

This section should discuss the implications of the findings in context of existing research and highlight limitations of the study. Future research directions may also be mentioned.

2.3.2.5 Conclusion

It should state clearly the main conclusions and include the explanation of their relevance or importance to the field.

2.3.2.6 References

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their references and for correct text citation. Number references in the order they appear in the text; do not alphabetize. In text, tables, and legends, identify references with superscript Arabic numerals. When listing references, follow AMA style and abbreviate names of journals according to the journals list in PubMed. List all authors and/or editors up to 6; if more than 6, list the first 3 followed by "et al." Note: Journal references should include the issue number in parentheses after the volume number.

Examples of reference style:

1. Notaro ALG, Neto FTL. The use of metformin in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: An updated review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(3):573-579. doi: 10.1007/s10815-022-02429-9
   Bai Y, Chang H, Tang N, et al. Micronutrients and polycystic ovary syndrome in the IEU OpenGWAS project: A  twoSample unidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):9721. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-92006-8
2. Yin J, Hong X, Ma J, Bu Y, Liu R. Serum trace elements in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: A  systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:572384. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.572384
   4. Sun Y, Wang Z, Gong P, Yao W, Ba Q, Wang H. Review on the health-promoting effect of adequate selenium status. Front Nutr. 2023;10:1136458. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1136458

For more examples of electronic references, click here.

The journal also recommends that authors prepare references with a bibliography software package, such as EndNote to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references.

2.3.2.7 Supplementary Materials

Additional data and information can be uploaded as Supplementary Materials to accompany the manuscripts. The supplementary materials will also be available to the referees as part of the peer-review process. Any file format is acceptable, such as data sheet (word, excel, csv, cdx, fasta, pdf or zip files), presentation (powerpoint, pdf or zip files), image (cdx, eps, jpeg, pdf, png or tiff), table (word, excel, csv or pdf), audio (mp3, wav or wma) or video (avi, divx, flv, mov, mp4, mpeg, mpg or wmv). All information should be clearly presented. Supplementary materials should be cited in the main text in numeric order (e.g., Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Figure 2, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Table 2,etc.). The style of supplementary figures or tables complies with the same requirements on figures or tables in main text. Videos and audios should be prepared in English, and limited to a size of 500 MB.

2.4 Manuscript Format

2.4.1 File Format

Manuscript files can be in DOC and DOCX formats and should not be locked or protected.

2.4.2 Length

The word limit is specified in the item "Types of Manuscripts". There are no restrictions on the number of figures or the amount of supporting documents. Authors are encouraged to present and discuss their findings concisely.

2.4.3 Language

Manuscripts must be written in English.

2.4.4 Multimedia Files

The journal supports manuscripts with multimedia files. The requirements are listed as follows:

• Video or audio files are only acceptable in English. The presentation and introduction should be easy to understand. The frames should be clear, and the speech speed should be moderate.
• A brief overview of the video or audio files should be given in the manuscript text.
• The video or audio files should be limited to a size of up to 500 MB.
• Please use professional software to produce high-quality video files, to facilitate acceptance and publication along with the submitted article. Upload the videos in mp4, wmv, or rm format (preferably mp4) and audio files in mp3 or wav format.

2.4.5 Figures

• Figuresshould be placed after the references at the end of the document, when submitting the manuscript. First, list the captions for each figure, and then present the figures.
• Figures need to be uploaded in an editable format separatelywhen submitting the revised
• Figures should be cited in numerical (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2) and placed after the paragraph where they are first cited.
• Figures can be submitted in format of tiff, jpegand png. Line graphs require a higher resolution (600 - 1200 dpi), while photographs should be at 300 dpi.. 
• Figure caption is placed under the Figure.
• Diagrams with describing words (including, flow charts, coordinate diagrams, bar charts, line charts, and scatter diagrams,etc.) should be editable in word, excel or powerpoint format. Non-English information should be avoided.
• Labels, numbers, letters, arrows, and symbols in figure should be clear, of uniform size, and contrast with the background.
• Symbols, arrows, numbers, or letters used to identify parts of the illustrations must be identified and explained in the legend.
• Internal scale (magnification) should be explained and the staining method in photomicrographs should be identified.
• All non-standard abbreviations should be explained in the legend.
• Permission for use of copyrighted materials from other sources, including re-published, adapted, modified, or partial figures and images from the internet, must be obtained. It is authors' responsibility to acquire the licenses, to follow any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders, and cover any supplementary charges.

2.4.6 Tables

• Tablesshould be placed after the references at the end of the document when submitting the manuscript. First, list the captions for each table, and then present the tables.
• Tables need to be uploaded in an editable format separatelywhen submitting the revised

Tables should be cited in numerical and placed after the paragraph where they are first cited.

• The table caption should be placed above the table and labeled sequentially (e.g., Table 1, Table 2).
• Tables should be provided in editable form like DOC or DOCX format (picture is not allowed).
• Abbreviations and symbols used in tables should be explained in footnotes.
• Explanatory matter should also be placed in footnotes.
• Permission for use of copyrighted materials from other sources, including re-published, adapted, modified, or partial tables from the internet, must be obtained. It is authors' responsibility to acquire the licenses, to follow any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders, and to cover any supplementary charges.

2.4.7 Abbreviations

Abbreviations should be spelled out in full for the first time when they appear in the abstract, keywords, main text, and supplementary materials. Non-standard abbreviations are not allowed unless they appear at least three times in the text. Commonly-used abbreviations, such as DNA, RNA, ATP,etc., can be used directly without definition. Abbreviations in titles and keywords should be avoided, except for the ones which are widely used. 

2.4.8 Italics

The use of italics for emphasis is up to the authors. Make sure there are no misunderstandings. Words like vs., et al., etc., in vivo, in vitro; t test, F test, U test; related coefficient as r, sample number as n, and probability as P; names of genes; names of bacteria and biology species in Latin should be kept in Italic form.

2.4.9 Units

SI Units should be used. Imperial, US customary and other units should be converted to SI units whenever possible. There is a space between the number and the unit (i.e., 23 mL). Hour, minute, second should be written as h, min, s.

2.4.10 Numbers

Numbers appearing at the beginning of sentences should be expressed in English. When there are two or more numbers in a paragraph, they should be expressed as Arabic numerals; when there is only one number in a paragraph, number < 10 should be expressed in English and number > 10 should be expressed as Arabic numerals. 12345678 should be written as 12,345,678.

2.4.11 Equations

Equations should be editable and not appear in a picture format. Authors are advised to use either the Microsoft Equation Editor or the MathType for display and inline equations.

2.5 Submission Link

Submit an article via https://www.accscience.com/user/login?redirect_to=%2Fuser%2Fmanuscripts%2Fsubmission%3Fjournal_name%3DEJMO.

2.6 Resubmission requirements

1 Revised manuscript: Please do not use Microsoft Office’s "Comments" or "Track Changes" features. Highlight modified text in color and keep unmodified text in black; simply delete any text that needs to be removed.

2 Response letter: Submit as a PDF. Clearly specify the modified text, figure/table captions, figures, and tables within the letter so that reviewers can easily identify the changes made.

In addition to the revised manuscript and the point-by-point response to the reviewers, you also need to provide the following supplementary materials:

• Plagiarism Report:

Theranostics publishes only original research and does not tolerate plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. Authors must conduct a thorough similarity check of the main manuscript and all supplementary materials, and provide a plagiarism screening report (certificate) confirming that the submission meets originality standards. Preferred text similarity detection reports: https://www.ithenticate.com.

(2) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Report:

In accordance with COPE guidelines and the TITAN Guideline Checklist 2025, the use of any AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT) for manuscript preparation, image generation, data collection, or data analysis must be fully disclosed. Authors are required to specify in the Acknowledgements section whether AI tools were used, and to describe in the Materials and Methods section the type of tool, its specific application, and the parts of the manuscript it affected. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all AI-assisted content. AI tools cannot be listed as authors and an AI usage report or certificate confirming that the main text and Supporting Information contain less than 20% AI-generated content must be included with the revised submission. Preferred AI-writing detection reports and image screening report: https://imagetwin.ai.

(3) Figure Image Integrity Report:

1) General Figures: All figures in both the main text and the Supporting Information must be carefully examined to confirm that no image duplication, manipulation, or visual plagiarism has occurred, with particular attention to immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining data, immunofluorescence (IF) imaging data, and Western blot (WB) data. This confirmation must be explicitly stated in the cover letter. Where applicable, authors must explain any identified issues and provide the corresponding original data. For original images (e.g., Western blots and compact figure panels), please compile the raw data into a single PDF labeled as raw images, and state in the cover letter that this has been included. An image integrity screening report with supporting documentation (certificate) must also be submitted.

2) Western Blot Data: For all Western blots, authors are required to provide the uncropped original membranes and ensure that the results are supported by no fewer than three independent biological replicates. These raw Western blot images must be included in the compiled raw image PDF submitted with the manuscript.

 

3. Research and Publication Ethics

Please refer to ASP Research and Publication Ethics.

 

4. Authorship

Authorship credit of EJMO should be solely based on substantial contributions to a published study, as specified in the following four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
• Final approval of the version to be published.
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All those who meet these criteria should be identified as authors. Authors must specify their contributions in the section Authors' Contributions of their manuscripts. Contributors who do not meet all the four criteria (like only involved in acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group, general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, proofreading, etc.) should be acknowledged in the section of Acknowledgement in the manuscript rather than being listed as authors.

If a large multiple-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be authors before the work starts and confirm authors before submission. All authors of the group named as authors must meet all the four criteria for authorship.
AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as an author or co-author.

 

The number of authors for a monograph should generally not exceed 10, and for a review article, it should not exceed 7. If the number exceeds these limits, a cover letter must be provided to explain the reason.

 

5. Reviewers Suggestions and Exclusions

During the submission process, authors are encouraged to recommend 5-6 potential reviewers with the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. The editors will not necessarily approach these referees. Please provide detailed contact information (address, homepage, phone, e-mail address). The proposed referees should neither be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors of the manuscript within the last three years. Proposed reviewers should be from different institutions from those of the authors. You may identify appropriate Editorial Board members of the journal as potential reviewers. You may suggest reviewers from among the authors that you frequently cite in your paper. Any inappropriate recommended reviewers will lead to rejection.

You are welcome to exclude a limited number of researchers as potential Editors or reviewers of your manuscript. To ensure a fair and rigorous peer review process, we ask that you keep your exclusions to a maximum of three people. If you wish to exclude additional referees, please explain or justify your concerns—this information will be helpful for Editors when deciding whether to honor your request.

 

6. Editors and Journal Staff as Authors

Editorial independence is extremely important and Editorial Office staff do not interfere with editorial decisions.

Editorial staff or Editors shall not be involved in the processing their own academic work. Submissions authored by editorial staff/Editors will be assigned to at least two independent outside reviewers. Decisions will be made by other Editorial Board members who do not have conflict of interests with the author. Journal staff are not involved in the processing of their own work submitted to any ASP journals.

 

7. Policy of the Use of AI and AI-assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing

Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (e.g., large language models) are expected to be increasingly used to create content. In the writing process of manuscripts, using AI and AI-assisted technologies to complete key researcher work, such as producing scientific insights, analyzing and interpreting data or drawing scientific conclusions, is not allowed, and they should only be used to improve the readability and language of manuscripts. Authors are encouraged to upload a AI detection rate report as a Supplementary file.

AI and AI-assisted technologies should be used under human control and supervision as they may generate incorrect or prejudiced output, and they should not be listed as an author or co-author, nor cited as an author.

The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies should be disclosed by authors in their manuscripts, and a statement will be required in the final publication.

ASP will keep monitoring the development and adjust the policy when necessary.

 

8. Conflict of Interests

EJMO requires authors to declare any possible financial and/or non-financial conflicts of interest in the cover letter and back matter, as well as confirm this point when submitting their manuscript in the submission system. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors need to state "The authors declare no conflicts of interest". We also recognize that some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements, in which cases authors need to state "The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their competing interests in this work".

 

9. Editorial Process

AccScience Publishing (ASP) operates a rigorous peer review process handled by researchers and scholars, that aims to maximize quality. Submitted manuscripts are handled according to the flow chart below.

For most ASP journals, peer review is a double-blind assessment involving two or more reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Academic Editor. For every submission, an Academic Editor will be selected to oversee the peer-review process, including editorial decision-making. An Academic Editor is generally selected from the editorial board (Editor-in-Chief, or other Editorial Board Members); for Special Issues, a dedicated Guest Editor will be selected as the handling Academic Editor. The selection of the Academic Editor is based on the following principles:
(i) the submission to be screened or assessed is not contributed by the Academic Editor, or their involvement will not lead to a conflict of interest (including, but not limited to, assessing a submission contributed by a colleague, past/present collaborator, student, individual from the same institution, etc.); and
(ii) the Academic Editor demonstrates expertise in the subject matter of the assigned submission.

9.1 Pre-check

The pre-check stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by a dedicated in-house journal editor (of the Editorial Office), and an editorial pre-check performed by an Academic Editor.

The technical pre-check is designed to assess:

(i) the overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal and the assigned Special Issue;
(ii) manuscript adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards; and
(iii) standards of rigor to qualify for further review.

The editorial pre-check primarily entails an in-depth assessment by the handling Academic Editor regarding a submission’s match with the journal’s scope, as well as the overall scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. Submissions that do not meet the desired standards during the technical and/or editorial pre-checks will be desk-rejected.

Only submissions that have passed both the technical and editorial pre-checks will be subjected to peer review.

9.2 Peer Review

For most ASP journals, peer review is a double-blind assessment involving two or more reviewers,  which the reviewer's name and information is withheld from the author.

Recommending Reviewers: For manuscripts that have passed the pre-check, the Academic Editor recommends two or more external reviewers who are subject-matter experts and who are not Editorial Board members. Candidate reviewers are selected through web searches for related articles or from the publisher’s database of qualified reviewers, with appropriate conflict of interest management applied during the selection process. Preferred or potential reviewers recommended by authors might be considered, but there is no guarantee that all or some of them will be eventually invited to review. Scholars whom the authors wish to exclude from the peer-review process of their manuscripts will be taken into consideration, as long as their reasons for exclusion are well-justified.

Selecting Reviewers: Only scholars and/or researchers that fulfill the requirements in the following will be invited to be reviewers:

• Having the primary expertise to evaluate the manuscript’s quality (based on a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper, as verified through Scopus or ORCID);
• Hold a PhD or be an MD (applicable for medical journals);
• Holding no conflicts of interest with any of the authors (including not in active research collaboration with the authors for the past three years);
• Not coming from the same institution as the authors;
• Affiliated to an official and recognized academic institution.

If agreed to review an assigned manuscript, reviewers are advised to submit quality review reports within the stipulated period upon invitation (typically within 7–10 days). When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are required to provide review reports within 3 days. Extensions can also be granted on request. Submission of review reports can be done via our online platform, OSS.

Reviewers are expected to remain responsive throughout peer review, and maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

During the peer-review process, the in-house journal editor will play an assistive role in handling all communications with reviewers, authors, and the Academic Editor. The Academic Editor can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time; any issues can be raised to the handling in-house journal editor for a discussion.

At least two review reports will be collected for each manuscript. For primary research articles (e.g., original research, clinical trials, observational studies, case studies), two or more external reviewers experts who are not members of the journal's Editorial Board will be invited to ensure independent evaluation. Under rare circumstances, other Editorial Board Members may be consulted for additional, comprehensive evaluations, only if needed, to complement the review comments contributed by external reviewers, provided that they have relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.

After each round of peer review, the Academic Editor will make an appropriate editorial decision (i.e., reject, minor revision, major revision, accept) based on review reports.

9.3 Editorial Decision-Making

When a sufficient number of review reports (typically a minimum of two review reports) are received after the first round of peer review, the manuscript will be subjected to editorial decision-making by the handling Academic Editor. The options for decisions generally include reject, minor revision, major revision, and accept. A decision is made based on the overall manuscript quality, as well as feedback and recommendations by reviewers. In the event of conflicting reviewers’ recommendations, the handling Academic Editor will step in to adjudicate and provide an objective editorial decision. If necessary, more reviewers will be invited to review the same manuscript to aid with decision-making. Academic Editors reserve the right to disagree with the views and recommendations of the invited reviewers, and they should justify their decision for the benefit of the authors and reviewers. This may include circumstances where the handling Academic Editor recommends to accept a manuscript despite a reviewer’s recommendation to reject it. For such instance, in-house journal editor will seek a second independent opinion from another Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief before communicating a final decision to the authors.

9.4 Revision

In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, authors are requested to revise the paper in accordance with the comments and feedback laid within the decision letter.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer has made a selection to see the revised version. By default, however, revised manuscript will be sent to reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection. All reviewers can access the most recent revised version of the manuscript via OSS.

If the revision time requested by the authors is estimated to be longer than 2 months, we recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure comprehensive revisions before making a resubmission.

Revised manuscripts undergoing subsequent rounds of peer review will again be subject to editorial decision-making by the handling Academic Editor, as described above.

9.5 Special Issue

All Special Issue submissions are subject to rigorous and impartial peer-review like other regular submissions. Guest Editors will serve as the handling Academic Editors for their own Special Issues, supervising the editorial process of all Special Issue submissions and making an editorial decision (e.g., reject, minor revision, major revision, accept) based on review reports. The same principles of Academic Editor selection, as outlined in the introductory segment, apply for Special Issue submissions. For fair and unbiased assessments, Guest Editors are required to refrain from handling submissions from authors with whom they have potential competing interests. It is important to note that the entire editorial oversight conducted by the Guest Editors will be supervised by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure academic quality.

Papers submitted to a special issue by the guest editor(s) must be handled under an independent review process and make up no more than 25% of the issue’s total. Guest Editors are not allowed to handle their own submissions; therefore, an Academic Editor with no competing interests will be recruited for an independent peer review.

9.6 Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an email to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and must be lodged within three months from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being considered further.

Upon receipt of an appeal, the original handling Academic Editor will review the manuscript, the authors’ grounds for appeal, and relevant supporting materials (including the confidential identities of the reviewers, accessible only internally). The handling Academic Editor will provide an advisory recommendation based on the materials available and may recommend acceptance, further peer review, or uphold the original rejection decision. This decision will then be validated by the Editor-in-Chief. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.

9.7 Production & Publication

Following acceptance, the manuscript will be subjected to a series of production processes, including copy-editing, layout/galley proof preparation, and proofreading. In cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, authors will be notified and requested to address all the issues identified themselves before further production steps can commence. Alternatively, authors are recommended to employ a professional English editing and formatting service. Upon completion, the first galley proof will be shared with the authors for at least a round of proofreading. Finalized articles that have been confirmed by the authors will be released online. 

Provided the author responds promptly, it takes approximately two weeks from the acceptance of the article to its official online publication. Formal publication depends on the editorial office's scheduling; however, if there are special circumstances requiring expedited processing, you may contact the managing editor. Once articles in the EJMO journal are officially published, they will be indexed in the relevant databases (such as Scopus and Web of Science) within approximately four weeks.

9.8 Editorial Independence and Authority

Manuscripts are accepted by selected Academic Editor based on the overall quality of the manuscript, as well as feedback and recommendations by reviewers—particularly external reviewers for primary research articles—after a rigorous peer-review process. In-house journal editors (i.e., employed by AccScience Publishing) are not involved in editorial decision-making.

Our editors can reject any papers at any time before publication, including after acceptance, if concerns arise about the integrity of the submitted works.

9.9 Confidentiality

Submitted works and accessory materials will only be processed and evaluated by the in-house journal editors, Academic Editors, reviewers, and production editors.

Supplementary materials containing additional information to aid the understanding of work described in the manuscript is also subjected to peer review. Accessory documents such as research ethics approval proof, study participant consent form, copyright clearance proof and documents that might contain author-identifiable information and/or do not directly aid in understanding the work to be reviewed are not subjected to peer review.

10. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

AccScience Publishing is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published record.

10.1 Publisher and Editor Responsibilities

The Publisher and Editors are jointly responsible for maintaining the integrity of the published record through fair and timely investigations of alleged misconduct, transparent processes, and appropriate corrective actions.

10.2 Corrections

Corrections are issued for honest errors that affect interpretation but do not invalidate overall findings. Examples include errors in figures or tables, mathematical errors that do not affect conclusions, incorrect affiliations, and minor methodology description errors. The Publisher and Editor review correction requests promptly and publish corrections in a timely manner. Corrections are linked bidirectionally with the original article and indexing services are notified.

10.3 Retractions

ASP follows COPE retraction guidelines. Retractions are issued to correct the literature and alert readers to publications with serious concerns about integrity, validity, or reliability. Grounds for retraction include data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, research conducted without ethical approval, unreproducible findings without adequate explanation, unethical authorship practices, and duplicate publication without disclosure.

Retractions may be initiated by authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Publisher, authors' institutions or employers, funding agencies, or readers with compelling evidence. When authors refuse to retract despite clear evidence, the Editor or Publisher will issue the retraction independently.

All retraction notices include the title formatted as “Retracted: ” followed by the original article title, complete citation, identification of who is retracting, clear and specific reason, date of retraction, and whether authors agree or disagree. Retracted articles remain online permanently with “RETRACTED” watermarks on every page, prominent banners, and clear links to retraction notices.

10.4 Expressions of Concern

Expressions of Concern are issued when credible concerns require investigation but findings are incomplete. The Publisher and Editors will provide updates on investigation status and resolve concerns as promptly as possible, replacing the expression with a retraction, correction, or withdrawal based on findings.

Decisions to retract, correct, or issue an expression of concern are made by the handling Academic Editor or Editor-in-Chief; AccScience Publishing, in its role as publisher, supports and gives effect to editorial decisions and does not override them for commercial or other non-editorial reasons. All corrections and retractions are published promptly and linked bidirectionally to the original article. Authors are expected to contact the Editorial Office promptly upon discovery of any error in a published work.

 

 

11. Contact Us

Ms. Alice Liu
Managing Editor
ejmo.office@accscience.sg

Locations

Eurasian Journal of Medicine and Oncology
Singapore Headquarters
2 Venture Drive, #07-06 Vision Exchange, Singapore 608526
Office Hours: 9:00-17:00 (GMT +8)

Beijing Office, China
Tel: +010-6030 6742
Area 1, Hanwei International Plaza, 186 Neihuan West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, China
Office Hours: 9:00-17:30 (GMT +8)

Kuala Lumpur Office, Malaysia
Tel: +603 9549 5873
30-2, Jalan BS 1/2, Olive Hill Business park, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor, Malaysia
Office Hours: 8:30-17:30 (GMT +8)

Last updated on 5 June, 2025