Nature reviews clinical oncology

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

• The article is a synthesis/review or perspective, not a report of new primary data.
• The topic is broadly relevant to clinical oncology and timely, not narrow single-study minutiae.
• A topic proposal/abstract route has been used (or commissioning confirmed) rather than an unsolicited full manuscript.
• Coverage is comprehensive and balanced, with non-selective citation of the primary literature.
• Original display items (schematics, decision frameworks, tables) add synthesis value and are permissioned.
• ICMJE conflict-of-interest disclosures (including industry ties) and AI-use disclosure are prepared.

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>