Code of conduct for reviewers

Reviewers for GECP Lung Cancer & Clinical Research Journal must commit to perform with responsibility, integrity, confidentiality, impartiality, and objectivity, ensuring transparency in their reviews.

In any case, potential conflicts of interest must be declared.

The reviewers will evaluate the following aspects in the received manuscripts:

    • Originality and academic quality
    • Timeliness and relevance
    • Scientific contribution
    • Adherence to ethical principles
    • Methodological quality
    • Transparency

Any suspicion about the existence of the following criteria must be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief:

    • Plagiarism
    • Lack of adherence to international ethical standards in the development of research.
    • Data fractioning or salami slicing
    • Falsification, appropriation, or unauthorized reproduction of data, figures, images, algorithms, or tables.
    • Duplicate or redundant publication
    • Manipulation of bibliographic citations, including unwarranted self-citation
    • Omission of relevant information that has a direct impact on the content of the manuscript.
    • Unjustified alteration of the authors’ list


For detailed information, please refer to: https://publicationethics.org/

Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in peer review

This journal recognizes the potential of AI tools to support certain editorial tasks; however, it considers that the scientific evaluation of manuscripts and the preparation of peer review reports must remain the sole responsibility of the reviewer.

Therefore, the use of generative AI to evaluate manuscripts, generate or draft peer review reports, formulate editorial recommendations, or replace the reviewer’s critical judgment is not permitted. Likewise, reviewers must not enter manuscripts, data, tables, figures, reports, or any other confidential information into AI tools.

The use of AI tools is permitted exclusively as linguistic or editing support for text prepared by the reviewer, provided that such tools do not contribute to the scientific evaluation and that the confidentiality of the information is ensured. Any use of AI beyond this function must be disclosed to the editor. This position is consistent with the approach adopted by leading international scientific publishers, which establish varying levels of restriction and transparency regarding the use of AI in peer review.