Peer Review Process and Process for Appeals

Kidney Cancer operates a rigorous, timely, blinded peer review process (single blind by default, with an option for double-blind if requested) by experts in the field. This means that the identity of the authors is known to the reviewers but the identity of the reviewers is not communicated to the authors. 

Please visit our reviewer guidelines for further information about how to conduct a review.

After automatic plagiarism screening through iThenticate, all submitted manuscripts are subjected to initial appraisal by the Editors-in-Chief.

Manuscripts that are deemed unsuitable may be rejected without external review by the Editors-in-Chief and/or the Associate Editors and the authors will be informed as soon as possible.

Reasons to reject a paper in the pre-screening process could for example be because the work does not fall within the aims and scope of the Journal, the writing is of poor quality, the instructions to authors were not followed or the presented work is not novel.

If found suitable for further consideration, manuscripts are forwarded to an Associate Editor(AE) with expertise in the area who performs a second review and if determined to be of sufficient interest, then recruits appropriate referees. The AE will invite a sufficient number of reviewers to obtain at least 2 reviews.

Reviewers are asked to recuse themselves from reviewing a submission if a conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: collaboration with the authors in the past three years; any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest; a history of personal differences with the author(s). The Editors-in-Chief strive to ensure a typical turnaround time of 3 months from submission to final determination of status.

Reviewers are asked to judge a paper on at least:

  • Significance to field
  • Relevance to journal
  • Methodology
  • Data analysis
  • Literature review
  • Writing style/clarity

Based on the received reviews the Associate Editor will write a decision letter, choosing one of the following categories:

    • Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication and only requires minor polishing; thus, no further reviews are requested.

    • Minor revisions required

The authors are required to make moderate changes to their manuscript. The manuscript becomes acceptable for publication if the changes proposed by the reviewers and editors are successfully addressed. The revised manuscript will be examined by the Associate Editor and possibly sent back to all (or a selection of) reviewers for a second round of reviews. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers detailing the improvements made for the resubmission.

    • Major revisions required

The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. However, a major revision addressing all issues raised by the reviewers may be acceptable for publication. The revised manuscript will undergo a full second round of review. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers detailing the improvements made for the resubmission.

    • Revise and resubmit

In its current form, the manuscript is not suitable for publication. A resubmission would require substantial revisions and is only encouraged in special cases. The resubmitted manuscript will be considered as a new submission.

    • Reject

The manuscript is rejected as it is deemed to be out of scope, not relevant, or not meeting the journal’s quality standards in terms of significance, novelty, and/or presentation.

The Editors-in Chief may perform a secondary review and suggest additional revisions. After final inspection and approval of the decision letter by the Editors-in-Chief the authors are notified of the decision.

Once accepted, manuscripts are normally published on-line without delay (with the date of publication indicated) and appear in the next available print issue (published quarterly).

Co-authors who are also members of the Editorial Board are not involved in any way with the peer review process of articles of their (co-)authorship, and are asked to disclose this information in the Conflict of Interest section.

The Editors-in-Chief have ultimate responsibility for what is published in the journal.

Authors may appeal decisions by contacting the Editors-in-Chief (at

The Editors-in-Chief aim to inform authors in writing of the result of their appeal within 14 days.

Archives of original submissions, referee reports, revisions and correspondence for both accepted and rejected manuscripts are kept indefinitely.