| name | nature-reviews-clinical-oncology |
| description | Use when targeting Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology or deciding whether a clinical-oncology review or perspective fits this invited-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the commissioned-review and authoritative-synthesis bar, scope and house style, the topic-proposal route, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. Venue-fit aid only, not clinical advice. |
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (nature-reviews-clinical-oncology)
Journal positioning
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology is a Nature Reviews journal publishing authoritative,
largely commissioned and invited review and perspective articles in clinical
oncology — synthesizing the state of evidence across systemic therapy, immuno-oncology,
precision medicine, supportive and survivorship care, and cancer-care delivery for a
broad oncology readership. It is not a primary-research venue: it does not publish
original trials, original cohorts, or new datasets, and unsolicited primary-data
manuscripts are a top desk-reject. The defining expectation is a balanced, forward-
looking, expert synthesis that frames where a field stands and where it is going, with
clinical decision relevance — typically arising from an editor-commissioned topic or an
accepted pre-submission proposal. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing
aid; it is not clinical or regulatory advice and does not replace the journal's current
instructions for authors. Before submitting or proposing, re-check the live Nature
Reviews Clinical Oncology author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author has an authoritative clinical-oncology review or perspective idea and is
considering Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.
- The author needs to understand the commissioned/invited model and the pre-submission
topic-proposal route rather than direct manuscript submission.
- The author is choosing between a Nature Reviews synthesis and a primary-research
oncology journal.
- The author needs the venue's scope, house style, and the desk-reject reality for
unsolicited primary data.
Scope & topic fit
- Comprehensive, balanced reviews synthesizing the current evidence and controversies in
a clinical-oncology field, with clear clinical relevance.
- Perspectives and opinion/forward-looking pieces that frame a paradigm shift, emerging
therapeutic class, or unresolved clinical question.
- Cross-cutting syntheses spanning precision oncology, immuno-oncology, supportive/
survivorship care, and cancer-care delivery.
- Consensus-style or framework articles that organize a fragmented evidence base for
practising oncologists (when commissioned or proposed and accepted).
- Topics with broad oncology readership relevance, not narrow single-tumor minutiae,
unless the topic has wide methodological or practice import.
- Author teams with recognized expertise able to provide an authoritative, even-handed
account.
Method & evidence bar
- The article must be a synthesis of existing evidence, not a report of new primary data;
original trials/cohorts belong in a primary-research venue.
- Coverage must be comprehensive, current, and balanced: competing interpretations and
the strength/limitations of the underlying evidence must be represented fairly.
- Claims must be anchored to the primary literature with accurate, non-selective
citation; no over-reliance on the authors' own work.
- Forward-looking statements should be clearly distinguished from established evidence
and grounded in the cited literature.
- Where the synthesis includes a structured or systematic component, the relevant
reporting standard (e.g., PRISMA for any systematic-review element) should be applied.
- Display items (mechanism schematics, decision frameworks, comparative tables) must add
synthesis value and be original or properly permissioned.
Structure & house style
- Nature Reviews format with structured display items and an accessible expert register;
re-check current article types (Review, Perspective, etc.) and limits on the live
guide.
- The opening must frame why the topic matters now and the clinical question it
addresses; sections build a logical, signposted argument.
- High-quality, original schematic figures and summary tables are central and expected;
a key-points / at-a-glance summary is typical.
- Most articles are commissioned; unsolicited interest is normally handled via a
pre-submission proposal/abstract to the editors rather than a full manuscript.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.md and
../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the ICMJE and Nature Portfolio
anchors, then cite the current Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology for authors" and confirm
the commissioning model and pre-submission proposal route.
- Confirm whether to submit a topic proposal/abstract first rather than a full
manuscript; re-check article types, word/display-item/reference limits.
- For any systematic component, confirm the reporting checklist (e.g., PRISMA); confirm
figure-permission and originality requirements for display items.
- Re-check ICMJE authorship and conflict-of-interest disclosure (critical for review
authors with industry ties), funding, and AI-use disclosure.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- Unsolicited primary research (original trial, cohort, or dataset) — the single most common misfit.
- A full unsolicited manuscript where a pre-submission topic proposal was the expected route.
- Narrow, single-study, or self-citation-heavy reviews lacking balanced, comprehensive coverage.
- Out-of-date or selectively cited syntheses that misrepresent the strength of evidence.
- Opinion pieces with forward-looking claims not grounded in the cited literature.
- Topics too narrow or too distant from broad clinical-oncology readership relevance.
Re-routing decision
- Original clinical or translational oncology data →
annals-of-oncology / jama-oncology.
- Practice-changing oncology trial of broad significance → general medicine (
jama / NEJM / The Lancet in the natural-science bundle).
- Cancer epidemiology with a population/policy core →
the-lancet-public-health.
- Oncology imaging review or imaging-method study →
radiology.
- A primary-research systematic review/meta-analysis (not a commissioned narrative synthesis) → a primary-research oncology venue such as
annals-of-oncology / jama-oncology.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (invited/commissioned review venue)
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest clinical-oncology synthesis topics>
[Study design / reporting guideline] <review / perspective / synthesis-with-PRISMA-element — NOT primary data>
[Method/evidence] <is this an authoritative, balanced synthesis with broad relevance, via proposal/commission?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection — usually unsolicited primary data>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / proposal route / display-item permissions / COI / AI-use disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if primary data or out of scope, a better-matched venue>
