Journal of Thyroid Cancer · For Editors
For Editors
What a JTC handling editor does with a manuscript, in the order it is done, and the judgments the journal expects at each step.
01 · Role
What the role involves
A handling editor guides a manuscript from assignment to decision through clear screening, appropriately matched review, and a reasoned editorial outcome.
Independence
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Reviewers advise; the decision is the editor’s. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Editorial independence
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Billing and fee-relief administration is separate from editor assignment and decision-making.
Competing interests
Decline a manuscript from your own institution, a close collaborator, a recent co-author, or anyone whose work you have a financial or personal interest in. Declining costs the journal a day; a concealed interest costs it its reputation.
Your own manuscripts
An editor never handles, reviews or decides their own manuscript. It is assigned to another editor and the authorship is disclosed on the published article.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use anything in it before publication.
AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same applies to editorial assessment.
02 · Screening
Initial screening
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
- Scope. Confirm that the manuscript connects its material, methods, and conclusions to a substantive thyroid-oncology question, including cancer risk, the benign–malignant diagnostic boundary, tumor biology, care, or outcomes.
- Article type. Does the manuscript match a type the journal accepts, and is it presented as that type?
- Declarations. Ethics approval, consent, trial registration where applicable, data availability, funding, competing interests and AI use.
- Reporting checklist. Present and matching the design.
- Completeness. Methods detailed enough to assess; results consistent between text, tables and figures.
- Similarity. Assessed in context. No fixed percentage determines an outcome.
- Patient identifiability. Check images and case detail before the manuscript goes to anyone else.
Return at screening with a specific reason. “Out of scope” without naming what was out of scope helps nobody and generates an appeal.
03 · Reviewers
Selecting and managing reviewers
Matching expertise
Select reviewers who work in the specific area — a cytopathologist for a Bethesda-category study, a nuclear-medicine physician for a dosimetry study. A general oncologist is not a substitute.
How many
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Statistical and methodological input
Request an additional reviewer where the analysis carries the conclusion: survival modeling, diagnostic accuracy, or a machine-learning model.
Conflicts
Check the reviewer’s recent co-authorship and institution against the author list before inviting.
Double-blind requests
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Conflicting reviews
Do not average them. Read the manuscript and decide which reviewer is right, or seek a third opinion on the specific point of disagreement.
04 · Subject checks
Judgments specific to thyroid oncology
- Centrality. Does the work make a substantive contribution to thyroid oncology, including its risk, diagnostic boundaries, biology, care, or outcomes?
- Classification. Is the WHO edition, the staging system and the risk-stratification system stated, and is the one used appropriate to the period studied?
- Treatment claims. Does a retrospective or single-arm series support the treatment claim being made? Usually it supports description, not superiority.
- Diagnostic claims. Is there a reference standard, and was it applied to everyone — or only to those who went to surgery?
- Biomarkers. Has an association with outcome been described as a validated clinical test? It is not one without independent validation and a stated decision threshold.
- Endpoints. Are endpoints and follow-up appropriate to the histology, disease course, study aim, and claims? Survival endpoints may be particularly relevant in aggressive thyroid malignancies.
- Case reports. Is there a transferable lesson, or only an unusual patient?
- Models. Are data partitioning, comparators, evaluation, uncertainty, and claims appropriate to the model and study design? For probabilistic prediction models, assess calibration as well as discrimination.
- Causation. Does the discussion convert association into cause anywhere?
05 · Deciding
Reaching and writing a decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Read the manuscript yourself
Reviewer reports inform the decision; they do not make it. An editor who decides only from the reports cannot tell a thorough review from a superficial one.
Decide what is required
Separate what must change for the work to be sound from what would merely make it different. Only the first belongs in a revision request.
Write the decision
State the decision, the reasons, and what a revision must address, numbered so the authors can respond point by point. Include the reviewers’ comments.
Handle revisions
Return a revision to the same reviewers where the substance changed. Where the authors have answered the points, do not open new ones.
Editorial and production periods are managed as targets. Editors report delays to the editorial office so authors receive a current status.
06 · Integrity
When something is wrong
Raise it early
Suspected plagiarism, image manipulation, data irregularity, undisclosed conflicts or duplicate submission go to the editorial office as soon as you suspect them, before the decision.
Do not investigate alone
The journal follows COPE guidance. Where an institution must investigate the underlying records, the journal refers it and does not substitute its own inquiry.
After publication
The same applies to concerns raised about a published article. Correction, expression of concern and retraction are the journal’s instruments, and the editorial policies set out when each is used. See editorial policies.
Appeals
An appeal is considered by an editor who did not take the original decision. If you took it, you do not handle the appeal.
07 · Joining
Joining the editorial board
JTC welcomes editorial applications across thyroid oncology, including systemic and targeted therapy.
Researchers and clinicians working in thyroid oncology who would like to be considered should write to the editorial office with a CV, relevant publication list, current affiliation, areas of expertise, and an ORCID iD where available. Board selection is based on scholarly expertise and journal needs and is administered separately from fees, memberships, and the handling of an editor’s own submissions.
Editorial service and recognition
Editorial service develops experience in evaluating research, managing peer review, and supporting a reliable scholarly record. Editors are acknowledged on the journal website and may request a certificate of service from the editorial office. Opportunities to propose or help oversee special issues follow the journal’s ordinary proposal and conflict-of-interest procedures.
Editorial roles are voluntary. Appointment, responsibilities, and continuing service are reviewed by the journal. Neither editorial service nor any fee arrangement confers an advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor’s own manuscripts.
Resources for handling editors
Request the current decision-letter templates, onboarding guidance, or specialist statistical input from [email protected]. Match each reporting checklist to the study design rather than requiring a clinical checklist for every manuscript.
Decision-letter structure
- State the decision and the principal reasons.
- Separate issues essential to validity, ethics, or reporting from optional improvements.
- Number required revisions and identify the relevant manuscript locations.
- Include reviewer comments and explain any additional editorial requirement.
- For a revision, state how the authors should respond and provide the revised files.
Where to go next
Related pages
The policies these instructions apply, and what reviewers are asked to do.
Journal of Thyroid Cancer (JTC) · ISSN 2574-4496 · Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302 · published open access by Open Access Pub under CC BY 4.0, with copyright retained by authors. Editorial decisions are independent of any fee, service, membership or role.