International Journal of Cancer Care and Delivery

Manuscript Preparation Guidelines for Review Articles

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Scope and Eligibility

IJCCD accepts review articles (including mini-reviews and conference coverage) related to cancer care delivery
Review articles should provide a comprehensive, critical analysis of current literature on specific topics
Manuscripts must not have been published previously or be under consideration elsewhere
Pre-clinical studies are NOT accepted
Narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses are all acceptable

B. Types of Review Articles

Comprehensive Review: Broad, in-depth coverage of a topic
Systematic Review: Structured, protocol-driven synthesis with predefined search strategy
Meta-Analysis: Quantitative synthesis of data from multiple studies
Mini-Review: Focused review of recent developments or specific aspects
Scoping Review: Map key concepts and evidence in a field
Conference Coverage: Summary and analysis of presentations from major conferences

C. Language and Format

All manuscripts must be submitted in English
Submit as a single Microsoft Word document
Font: 12-point (Arial, Helvetica, or Times New Roman)
Line spacing: Double spacing throughout
Page margins: Minimum 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides

II. AUTHORSHIP AND CONTRIBUTORS

A. Authorship Criteria

All individuals designated as authors must meet ALL FOUR of the following criteria:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; OR the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
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

B. Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author must:

Ensure all journal administrative requirements are completed
Provide complete details of authorship and disclosure statements
Be available throughout the submission and peer-review process
Respond to editorial queries in a timely manner
Cooperate with post-publication requests for clarification or additional information

C. ORCID Identification

IJCCD encourages all authors to list their Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) numbers

III. MANUSCRIPT STRUCTURE

A. Title Page

The title page must include:

Article Title

Clear, concise, and descriptive
Should accurately reflect the study content
Avoid unnecessary abbreviation

Author Information (for each author)

Full name (first name, middle initial, last name)
Highest academic degree(s)
Department(s) and institution(s) affiliation
City, state/province, and country
ORCID (encouraged)

Corresponding Author Details

Full mailing address
Telephone number
Email address

Type of Article: Review Article (specify subtype if applicable: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, Mini-Review, Conference Coverage, or other.)
Word Count: Total word count excluding abstract, references, tables, and figures
Number of Tables and Figures: Specify the exact number
Number of References: Specify the total number

B. Abstract (Required)

Type: Unstructured abstract
Word Limit: 300 words or less
Content: A continuous paragraph summarizing:

Background/rationale for the review
Objectives or key questions addressed
Methods used (search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria for systematic reviews)
Main findings or themes identified
Conclusions and implications for practice or research

Special Requirements for Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses:

Briefly describe the search strategy
State databases searched and date range
Number of studies included
Key outcomes examined

C. Take Home Message (Required)

Provide 2-5 bullet points summarizing key messages for readers
Placed after the abstract
Should highlight:

Novel insights or synthesis
Clinical or research implications
Knowledge gaps identified
Future directions

D. Main Body

Structure for Review Articles

The main body can be divided into sections as appropriate to the topic and review type. While there is flexibility, the following structure is recommended:

1. Introduction

Provide rationale for the review
Define scope and boundaries of the review
State objectives or key questions
Explain importance and timeliness of the topic
Brief overview of current state of knowledge
Describe organization of the review
Length: Typically 500-800 words

2. Methods (REQUIRED for Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses; RECOMMENDED for all reviews)

a. Search Strategy

Databases searched (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus)
Search terms and Boolean operators used
Date range of search
Date search was conducted
Language restrictions (if any)
Additional sources (e.g., reference lists, gray literature, conference abstracts)

b. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Study designs included
Population characteristics
Interventions or exposures of interest
Outcomes measured
Publication types (e.g., peer-reviewed only)
Language restrictions
Time period
Quality criteria

c. Study Selection Process

Number of reviewers involved in screening
Method for resolving disagreements
Use of screening tools or software
PRISMA flow diagram (for systematic reviews)

d. Data Extraction

Data elements extracted
Extraction tools or forms used
Quality assessment methods
Risk of bias assessment tools (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale)

e. Data Synthesis and Analysis

Method of synthesis (narrative, qualitative, quantitative)
Statistical methods for meta-analysis (if applicable)

Effect measures used
Heterogeneity assessment (I², Q statistic)
Fixed vs. random effects models
Subgroup analyses
Sensitivity analyses
Publication bias assessment (funnel plots, Egger's test)

Software used for analysis

f. Protocol Registration (for Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses)

State if protocol was pre-registered
Provide registration number and repository (e.g., PROSPERO, OSF)
Note any deviations from protocol

g. AI Use Disclosure (if applicable)

Describe any AI technology used in conducting the review
Include tool name, version, and specific applications (e.g., literature screening, data extraction)
Clarify that final decisions remained with human reviewers

3. Results/Findings

For Narrative Reviews:

Organize thematically or chronologically
Use clear subheadings
Synthesize evidence from multiple sources
Identify patterns, themes, and contradictions
Present balanced perspective
Compare and contrast different approaches or findings

For Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses:

Study selection results (with PRISMA flow diagram)
Characteristics of included studies (summary table)
Quality assessment results
Synthesis of findings by outcome
Quantitative results (for meta-analyses):

Forest plots
Summary effect estimates with confidence intervals
Heterogeneity statistics
Subgroup analyses results
Sensitivity analyses results
Publication bias assessment

Suggested Subheadings (adapt as needed):

Overview of Literature
[Thematic Section 1]
[Thematic Section 2]
[Thematic Section 3]
Knowledge Gaps
Emerging Trends

Length: This will be the longest section, typically 2,000-4,000 words depending on review scope

4. Discussion

Summarize key findings and their significance
Interpret findings in context of existing knowledge
Discuss clinical implications
Discuss research implications
Identify limitations of the review:

Search strategy limitations
Publication bias
Study quality issues
Heterogeneity
Gaps in literature

Address controversies or conflicting evidence
Suggest future research directions
Discuss implementation considerations (where applicable)

Length: Typically 800-1,200 words

5. Conclusions

Clear, concise summary of main messages
Practical implications for clinicians, researchers, or policymakers
Avoid overgeneralization
Must be supported by evidence presented
Should answer objectives stated in introduction

Length: Typically 200-400 words

Total Word Limit for Main Body: 1,500-5,500 words (excluding abstract, figure/table legends, and references)

Mini-reviews: typically 1,500-3,000 words
Standard reviews: typically 3,000-4,500 words
Comprehensive systematic reviews/meta-analyses: up to 5,500 words

IV. REQUIRED STATEMENTS

See Journal Policies for more detailed instructions. All manuscripts must include the following statements:

A. Conflict(s) of Interest

Provide detailed information about all relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations. If no conflicts exist, state explicitly: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."

B. Funding Information

Report all financial and material support for the research
Include grant numbers and funding agency names
Distinguish between direct funding for the work and support for individual author time
Example format: "This study was funded by [Agency X, Grant #12345]; Dr. [Name]'s time on the work was supported by [Agency Y, Grant #67890]"

C. Ethical Statements

Must be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2024)
Must include ethics committee name and approval reference number

D. Informed Consent (when applicable)

State that informed consent was obtained from participants. For identifiable patient information: written consent required and archived. Indicate in the manuscript when informed consent was obtained.

E. Protocol Registration (for Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses)

State whether review protocol was registered
Provide registration number and repository name (e.g., PROSPERO: CRD42024000000)
If not registered, explain why
Note any deviations from registered protocol

F. Data Availability Statement

For systematic reviews/meta-analyses: state the availability of extracted data
Provide access information for data tables, search strategies, or analysis code
Example: "All data extracted from included studies are available in the supplementary materials"
If using publicly available databases, reference them

G. Acknowledgements

Acknowledge support not covered in the author contributions or funding sections
Examples: administrative support, technical assistance, writing assistance
Obtain written permission from acknowledged individuals
AI Writing Assistance: Disclose any AI use for improving readability and language in this section

H. Declaration of AI Use in Scientific Writing

Authors using generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must disclose their use
Limit use to improving readability and language only
AI should NOT be credited as author or co-author
AI should NOT be cited as the author
Authors remain fully responsible for all content
AI-generated content may be incomplete or inaccurate

I. Author Contributions (Required for ALL authors)

Specify contributions in the following categories:

Conceptualization
Methodology/search strategy design
Literature search and screening
Data extraction
Quality assessment
Data analysis (for meta-analyses)
Writing - original draft
Writing - review and editing
Visualization (figures/tables)
Supervision
Statement: "All authors have read and approved the final manuscript."

V. REFERENCES

A. General Guidelines

Maximum: 100 references
Use AMA (American Medical Association) style
Number consecutively in order of first mention in text
Verify accuracy using PubMed or original sources
Check that references do not cite retracted articles (except when discussing retractions)
Prioritize original research articles and recent publications
Include seminal/landmark papers where appropriate
Balance breadth and depth of citations

B. Reference Selection Strategy

Include primary sources whenever possible
Use recent publications (within last 5-10 years) for the current state of knowledge
Include landmark/foundational studies regardless of age
Avoid excessive self-citation
Avoid citing predatory or pseudo-journals
Limit citations to abstracts; prefer full-text articles
When citing preprints, clearly mark them as such and prefer peer-reviewed versions when available

C. AMA Reference Format

Basic Principles:

Author names: Last name followed by initials (no comma, no periods/spaces between initials)

Example: "Ursula P. Ellington" becomes "Ellington UP"

List up to 6 authors; for 7+: list first 3 followed by "et al."
Article titles: sentence case, no italics
Journal names: italicized, title case
Include DOI when available: "doi:10.1093/her/cyt053"
When DOI included, URL not needed
For URLs: include access date (e.g., "Accessed November 14, 2025")

Journal Article Format:

Author AA, Author BB, Author CC. Title of article. Abbreviated Journal Title. Year Month;Volume(Issue): Page-Page. doi:DOI

Example: Smith JD, Johnson KL, Williams MR, et al. Cancer care delivery improvements in rural settings. J Oncol Pract. 2024 Jan;20(1):45-52. doi:10.1200/JOP.23.00456

Book Format:

Author AA, Author BB. Title of Book. Edition number. Publisher City, State/Country: Publisher Name; Year.

Example: Abeloff MD, Armitage JO, Niederhuber JE, et al. Abeloff's Clinical Oncology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020.

Book Chapter Format:

Chapter Author AA, Chapter Author BB. Title of chapter. In: Editor CC, Editor DD, eds. Title of Book. Edition. Publisher City, State: Publisher; Year:Page-Page.

Example: DeVita VT, Chu E. A history of cancer chemotherapy. In: DeVita VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 11th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2019:322-334.

Websites/Online Resources:

Organization/Author. Title of webpage. Website name. Published date. Updated date. Accessed date. URL

Example: National Cancer Institute. Cancer stat facts: cancer of any site. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Updated April 2024. Accessed November 14, 2025. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Preprints:

Author AA, Author BB. Title of preprint. Preprint posted online Month Day, Year. Repository Name. doi:DOI

Example: Chen L, Wang Y, Zhang H. Novel immunotherapy approaches in lung cancer. Preprint posted online June 15, 2024. medRxiv. doi:10.1101/2024.06.15.24308925

Systematic Review Registrations:

Include in text or methods, not typically in reference list

VI. TABLES

A. Submission Format

May be submitted as separate files or included in manuscript after references
Number consecutively in order of first mention
Each table on separate page

B. Table Requirements

Minimum ½ inch (1.27 cm) margins on all sides
Clear, self-explanatory title
Column headings: short and clear
Footnotes: explain all abbreviations and symbols
Cite each table in text

C. Common Table Types for Reviews

Summary of Included Studies: Author, year, design, population, intervention/exposure, outcomes, key findings
Quality Assessment Results: Study ID, quality domain scores, overall quality rating
Evidence Summary Tables: Outcome, number of studies, participants, effect estimate, quality of evidence
Characteristics of Excluded Studies: Author, year, reason for exclusion
Methodological Features: Study characteristics organized by specific features

D. Limits

Maximum: 6 tables and figures combined. Any additional tables and figures should be added to a supplementary file.

VII. FIGURES

A. Technical Requirements

Resolution: 300 dpi or higher
Preferred formats: TIFF, JPEG, EPS, PDF
Standard formats accepted
Color encouraged (especially for complex data visualizations)
May be submitted as separate files or included in manuscript

B. Figure Requirements

Number consecutively in order of first mention
Each figure must have a legend placed at the bottom of the figure
Figures should be self-explanatory
Use professional-quality graphics

C. Common Figure Types for Reviews

1. PRISMA Flow Diagram (REQUIRED for systematic reviews)

Shows study selection process
Must follow PRISMA 2020 format
Include numbers at each stage

2. Forest Plots (for meta-analyses)

Show individual study effects and pooled estimates
Include confidence intervals
Clearly label axes and studies
Conceptual Frameworks/Models

3. Conceptual Frameworks/Models)

Illustrate relationships or pathways
Clear labeling of components
Professional design

4. Timeline Figures

Show evolution of field or treatments
Chronological organization

5. Summary Infographics

Visual synthesis of key findings
Easy to understand at a glance

D. Previously Published Figures

Obtain written permission from copyright holder
Acknowledge original source
Required regardless of authorship or publisher (except public domain)

E. Limits

Maximum: 6 tables and figures combined. Any additional tables and figures should be added to a supplementary file.

VIII. REPORTING GUIDELINES

A. Mandatory Reporting Guidelines

For Systematic Reviews: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)

Complete PRISMA 2020 checklist
Include PRISMA flow diagram
Register protocol (PROSPERO recommended)

For Meta-Analyses: PRISMA + MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) if observational studies

For Scoping Reviews: PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews)

For Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research)

B. Optional but Recommended

For Network Meta-Analysis: PRISMA-NMA

For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews: PRISMA-DTA

For Quality Assessment:

RCTs: Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0
Observational Studies: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, ROBINS-I
Diagnostic Studies: QUADAS-2
Overall Evidence Quality: GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)

C. Resources

EQUATOR Network: www.equator-network.org
PRISMA Statement: www.prisma-statement.org
Cochrane Handbook: www.handbook.cochrane.org

IX. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

A. Cover Letter

Must include:

Statement about review type (narrative, systematic, meta-analysis, etc.)
Statement confirming no previous publication or concurrent submission
Declaration of any related reviews by the same authors
Financial or other conflicts of interest (if not in manuscript)
Authorship statement confirming:

All authors meet authorship criteria
All authors have read and approved the manuscript
The manuscript represents honest work

Corresponding author contact information
Statement about protocol registration (for systematic reviews/meta-analyses)
Any additional relevant information

B. Required Documents

PRISMA checklist (for systematic reviews/meta-analyses)
PRISMA flow diagram (for systematic reviews, can be in manuscript)
Search strategy (detailed, can be supplementary material)
Supplementary materials (if any):

Detailed search strategies for all databases
List of excluded studies with reasons
Additional tables/figures
Quality assessment details
Meta-analysis data files
Analysis code

C. Optional but Recommended Documents

Protocol or protocol registration confirmation
Quality assessment tools/forms used
Data extraction forms
Previous reviewer comments and responses (if resubmission)

X. ADDITIONAL POLICIES

A. Duplicate Publication

Prohibited without clear statement and editor approval
Related reviews must be disclosed and referenced
Provide copies of related materials

B. Preprint Posting

Allowed but must be disclosed
Include preprint DOI and repository name
Update preprint to link to published version
Indicate clearly that the material is under peer review

C. Updates to Published Reviews

Authors are encouraged to update major reviews periodically
Should be published as a new article, not a correction
Should reference the original review

D. Living Systematic Reviews

IJCCD may consider living systematic reviews (continually updated)
Special arrangements required
Contact editors before submission

XI. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY STANDARDS

A. For All Reviews

Clear research question or objective
Transparent and reproducible methods
Comprehensive literature search
Systematic approach to study selection
Critical appraisal of evidence
Balanced presentation of evidence
Clear conclusions supported by data

B. For Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses

Pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO or equivalent)
At least two independent reviewers for screening
Quality assessment of included studies
Assessment of publication bias (for meta-analyses with ≥10 studies)
Exploration of heterogeneity
Sensitivity analyses
Use of appropriate statistical methods
GRADE assessment of evidence quality (recommended)

C. For Narrative Reviews

Explicit description of literature search methods
Transparent inclusion criteria
Critical synthesis, not just summary
Discussion of limitations
Identification of knowledge gaps

XII. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Citation Ethics

Cite all sources accurately
Do not cite retracted articles (except when discussing the retraction)
Avoid predatory journals
Give appropriate credit to the original work
Avoid excessive self-citation
Balance citations across research groups

B. Selective Reporting

Present a balanced view of evidence
Include studies with negative or null results
Disclose if publication bias is suspected
Do not cherry-pick studies to support predetermined conclusions

C. Conflicts of Interest

Declare all relevant conflicts
Consider how conflicts might influence the review
Editors will assess whether conflicts compromise review integrity

D. Plagiarism and AI Use

All text must be original or properly quoted and cited
AI-generated text must be disclosed and verified
Paraphrasing must be substantial, not superficial
Self-plagiarism is unacceptable

E. Data Integrity

Accurately represent findings from original studies
Do not manipulate data in meta-analyses
Preserve raw data for verification
Make calculation methods transparent

XIII. RESOURCES AND TOOLS

D. Reference Management

EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, RefWorks
PubMed: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

E. Meta-Analysis Software

RevMan (Cochrane): www.training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software/revman
R (meta, metafor packages): www.r-project.org
Stata, SAS, SPSS

F. Quality Assessment Tools

Cochrane RoB 2: www.riskofbias.info
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
QUADAS-2: www.bristol.ac.uk/population-health-sciences/projects/quadas/