Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
CMAS‡ - Pancreas - EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:1 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas - EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:3 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas - EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:4 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas -Sampling Techniques for Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:2 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas- EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:5 of 5
CytoJournal Monograph Related Review Series
CytoJournal Monograph Related Review Series (CMAS), Editorial
CytoJournal Monograph Related Review Series: Editorial
Cytojournal Quiz Case
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Methodology Article
Methodology Articles
Original Article
Pap Smear Collection and Preparation: Key Points
Quiz Case
Research Article
Review Article
Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
View Point

Reviewer Corner

CytoJournal Core Reviewers are the most critical part of the CytoJournal community. They support its high standard peer-review process which translates into the final high-quality CytoJournal articles.

If you are included in the ‘CytoJournal Core Reviewers’ list, you will periodically receive CytoJournal manuscripts through the CytoJournal online manuscript submission and review system (

Your ID for the system is your e-mail address. So it is critical that you periodically check and update your e-mail & other details through your log-in area. Please make it sure that your e-mail platform is optimized to accept all e-mails from CytoJournal (and check your spam/junk folder periodically for any communications in this matter. Please optimize your platform by selecting appropriate choices such as ‘Not junk mail’ etc.)

As ‘CytoJournal Core Reviewer’ you will receive an e-mail assigning a particular
CytoJournal manuscript to you. If you Do not decline the article (which can be done by clicking the ‘decline’ links provided in the initial e-mail if you miss at this stage, you may log in as reviewer through and decline through the link under that manuscript in your queue at any time). If the review report is not received in the stipulated period, the system automatically sends friendly reminders. To Avoid these reminders it is important to ‘decline’ the manuscript if you are planning not to review a particular manuscript for any reason. (The sequence is different for ‘Guest Reviewers’ who are not part of CytoJournal Core Reviewers and are not in the list on the web).

List of CytoJournal Core Reviewers 
(CytoJournal core Reviewer list is updated adding CytoJournal reviewers as they are invited and have accepted the invitation to review the CytoJournal manuscript). If you opt to be removed from the list, please write to 

Join as CytoJournal Core Reviewers

Submit a review report

Scholars are encouraged to join as CytoJournal Reviewer. The List is one of the significant resources to invite qualified reviewers to invite them as CytoJournal Core Reviewer. If they are invited and have completed the review of CytoJournal manuscripts, they are automatically included in the published list of CytoJournal Core Reviewers. This data is an important resource of updated contact details to invite the review.

Click here to read CytoJournal Peer Review Process.

Reviewer Resources

Callaham M, Schiger D, Copper RJ: An instructional guide for peer-review of Biomedical manuscripts.

Shidham VB, Sandweiss L, Atkinson BF, First CytoJournal Peer-Reviewer’s Retreat in 2006-opem access, peer-review, and impact factor.


The quality of a journal depends on the quality of articles published, which in turn depends upon the quality of the refereeing process and reviewers. Not only the quality in terms of the content but also the quality in terms of providing early and fast replies to authors and the period from the receipt of an article to its publication depends on the referees. To say in minimum words, referees are the backbone of any peer-reviewed journal. ‘World relies on journals and journals rely on referees’ – such is the importance of a referee.

We are fortunate to have the services of the following experts for our review process.

If you are already a reviewer, to update your details, please click here login as a reviewer and update it. 

Guidelines For Reviewers​

  • The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.
  • A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
  • If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor with that explanation.
  • Reviews should be completed expeditiously, within 3-4 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within the time specified, please inform the editor.
  • A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author/s. If you want to consult a colleague or junior please discuss this with us first.
  • Please do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author, but advise the editor on sheet provided.
  • In your review, please consider the following aspects of the manuscript as far as they are applicable:
      1. Scientific reliability
      2. Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied
      3. Originality (truly original or known to you through foreign or specialist publications or through the grapevine)
      4. Adequacy of abstract, keywords.
      5. Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate, need for statistical assessment). Methods adequately described? Appropriate? Patients studied adequately described and their condition defined?
      6. Are results relevant to the problem posed? Credible? Well presented?
      7. The soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
      8. Relevance of discussion
      9. References up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
      10. The relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.
      11. Suitability for the CytoJournal and overall recommendations. Appropriate for general readership or more appropriate for a specialist journal?
      12. If not acceptable can the paper be made so?
      13. Ethical aspects
      14. Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing)
  • In comments intended for the author’s, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
  • Suggested revisions should be couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
  • Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For this reason please give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.
  • Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.
  • You are not requested to correct mistakes/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.
  • The editor gratefully receives a reviewer’s recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.
  • Please check for plagiarism using the link provided

(These guidelines are based on the guidelines provided by Council of Science Editors)