Focus and Scope

The Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal is the official publication of the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology and is directed to the professional nurse caring for patients and families with cancer. The journal supports the philosophy of the national association. It is an open access publication to enable a wide readership.

The purpose of the journal is to support and stimulate the development and growth of oncology nursing practice, education research, and leadership in Canada. The specific objectives are to:

• Disseminate current cancer control knowledge to underpin the specialty practice of oncology nurses and the nursing care of cancer patients in general
• Publish a high quality bilingual (English and French) journal
• Include a mix of peer reviewed and invited manuscripts
• Foster the capacity of oncology nurses to publish in a professional journal

The journal acts as a vehicle for sharing evidence related to clinical oncology practice, technology, education, research, and leadership. In addition, the journal serves to keep Canadian oncology nurses appraised regarding the significant developments from their national specialty association.

Section Policies

Editorial

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Features

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Communiqué

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Supplement

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Conference Abstracts

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Conference Poster Abstracts

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal undergo double-blind, external review, unless they are out of scope for the Journal or were submitted as a Feature (See below).

A manuscript submitted to the CONJ for possible publication must be submitted to CONJ alone (i.e., must not be submitted to another journal at the same time) and must not have been published, submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere.

When a manuscript is submitted, it is expected that one author will be named corresponding author and all correspondence or communication about the manuscript will be with this individual. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal will be acknowledged as received.

Upon submission, the Editor in Chief will review the manuscript and determine its suitability for the journal and the adherence to the Journal guidelines. If either of these criteria are not met, the manuscript will be return to the corresponding author with a note of explanation within a week.

All manuscripts submitted for peer-review are reviewed by at least two suitably qualitied experts selected by the Editor in Chief. Reviewers are asked to identify any conflicts or competing interests prior to accepting the invitation to review a manuscript.

Reviewer comments are returned to the Editor in Chief who makes the final publication decisions based on these reviews. The review process is a confidential communication between the reviewers and the Editor in Chief, and subsequently between the Editor in Chief and the corresponding author. Reviewers are instructed not to discuss any manuscript they receive for review from the Editor in Chief with anyone not involved directly in the review of the specific manuscript.

Submissions deemed suitable for peer review by the Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal are sent to at least two experts selected by the Editor in Chief. Selection, at the sole discretion of the Editor in Chief, is based on the nature of the topic and the type of manuscript as well as no conflict of interest. The Journal uses a double-blind review process where neither the reviewers nor the author are aware of one another's identity.

The reviewers utilize the Journal Reviewer Feedback Form to return their comments to the Editor in Chief. These comments are collated by the Editor in Chief and sent back to the corresponding author of a manuscript together with the indication about the status of the manuscript (i.e., acceptance, rejection, amendments in the manuscript). This review process is expected to take approximately 4-6 weeks.

For manuscripts that are revised and returned to the Editor in Chief, it is expected the authors will also submit a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. Manuscripts that have undergone a major revision will likely be sent to external reviewers for a new review. However, those requiring only minor revisions will be reviewed on resubmission by the Editor in Chief.

Manuscripts that are accepted for publication are copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. They are subsequently translated from English to French or from French to English. Any questions that require author input during the translation process will be handled through the corresponding author.

Once publication layout has been completed, page proofs will be sent to the corresponding author for review. The corresponding author is expected to return corrected proofs within three days. It may not be possible to incorporate changes if the designated time period is exceeded.

The entire process of submission to final decision, and the sending and receiving proofs, is completed online.

Manuscripts submitted for consideration as a Feature Article will be reviewed by the Editor in Chief. Feedback regarding the manuscript will be provided by the Editor in Chief to the corresponding author. Feedback will include indication of the publication status (i.e., acceptance, rejection, amendments). The final decision regarding publication will be at the sole discretion of the Editor in Chief. Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, the process for copy editing and translation will be followed as described above.

All articles, whether research or summary perspectives papers are reviewed by 2 experts in the content and methods topics of the paper.

Features are reviewed by the Editor in Chief. These are articles that are generated from special lectures at the Association conference or short columns related to practice, education or quality improvement initiatives.

Experts in the respective content area and research methods engaged in the peer review. These individuals are external to the Editorial Committee.

Desk review is done initially by the Editor in Chief; submissions meeting the Journal guidelines are sent to two peers for review by the Editor in Chief; reports from reviewers are returned to the Editor in Chief who in term collates the comments and sends them to the author(s) with an initial decision about the manuscript; for manuscripts that are revised and resubmitted, if the revisions are minimal, the Editor in Chief makes a decision about the next step but if the revisions are considerable, the revised manuscript is sent back to the peer reviewers for a second review.

We do not ask for or use author recommended reviewers. 

Masking is done for authors, identifying institutional information and the reviewers.

Any supplemental material is also peer reviewed. 

We do not post reviews at this point. They are kept on file with the Editor in Chief.

Reviewers’ identities are known to the Editor in Chief; all review reports are from known individuals.

Publication Frequency

The Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal is published six times per year.

2025 Publishing Schedule

January
Confirmation: Dec. 1, 2024
File submission: Jan. 3
Publication: January

March 
Confirmation: Feb. 3
File submission: Feb 14
Publication: March

May
Confirmation: April 1
File submission: April 18
Publication: May

July
Confirmation: June 2
File submission: June 20
Publication: July

September
Confirmation: Aug. 1
File submission: Aug. 15
Publication: September

November
Confirmation: Oct. 1
File submission: Oct. 17
Publication: November

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal (CONJ) is a peer review journal providing a platform for knowledge exchange and academic dialogue in the field of oncology nursing. All parties involved in the publishing process (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board, translators. and publisher) are expected to adhere to standards of ethical behaviour. The publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of CONJ is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

 1. Duties of Editors

Publication decisions

Editors ensure that all manuscripts submitted and being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field and respective topics. Reviewer reports are made available to the authors. The decision regarding publication is based on the validation of the work under consideration, its importance to the field of oncology nursing and readers of the journal, reviewers’ comments regarding quality of the submission, and legal requirements in current force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. A mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions is established.

 

Post publication discussion and corrections

After an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change to the Version of Record. This is done after careful consideration by the Editor in Chief with guidance from the Editorial Committee for the Journal and guidance from the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) as needed. Any necessary changes will be accompanied with a post-publication notice which is permanently linked with the original article. The notice may include Correction notice, Expression of Concern, Retraction or, in rare circumstances, Removal. These changes, once implemented, are permnent and ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.

 

Complaints and Appeals

Appeals to editor decisions need to provide strong evidence of new data or information in response to the reviewers’ and/or editor’s comments. The CONJ follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) https://publicationethics.org/ guidelines on appeals to editor decisions and complaints about editorial management of the peer review process. Editors will consider one appeal per article and all decisions are final. Review and decisions on new submissions will take priority over appeals.

 

Confidentiality

Editor(s) will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, the translator, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Editor(s) are obligated to protect the identity and confidentiality of both the authors and the reviewers.

 

Data sharing and reproducibility

Data may be made available upon reasonable request of the authors as long as the request does not violate protection of human subjects or other valid privacy concerns.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editor(s), editorial board members and reviewers will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors and reviewers as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.

Editor(s) or reviewers will recuse themselves from considering a manuscript in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connects to the manuscript. In this instance, the Editor-in-Chief will reassign responsibility for handling the manuscript.

 

Ethical oversight

The Editorial Board ensures compliant with COPE’s https://publicationethics.org/ guidelines on ethical oversight. Ethical oversight includes, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and of business/marketing practices.

 

Fair play and editorial independence

Editor(s) and reviewers evaluate submitted manuscripts on the basis of academic merit (importance, originality, validity, clarity) and relevance to the scope of the CONJ without regard to the author’s age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, social class or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members have full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of the publication of that content.

 

Misconduct

Editor(s) will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of manuscripts where research misconduct has occurred. All forms of misconduct are taken seriously andw ill result in necessary action in accordance with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing  https://publicationethics.org/.  Examples of misconduct include (but are not limited to) affiliation misrepresentation, breaches in copyright/use of third-party material without appropriate permissions, citation manipulation, duplicate submission/publication, avoiding international standards of research ethics, image or data manipulation/fabrication, peer review manipulation, plagiarism, text-recycling/self-plagiarism, undisclosed competing interests and/or unethical research. For plagiarism, CONJ makes use of Turnitin to detect plagiarism based on similarity check. Submitted manuscripts with evidence of plagiarism are returned to the author with appropriate notification.

 

Publication fraud

Responsible measures are taken by Ediotr(s) when ethical concerns arise regarding a submitted manuscript or published article. Should a publication be discovered year later, the reported unethical publishing behaviors will be considered. The COPE flowcharts for suspected misconduct are followed. Upon investigation, if ethical concerns based on solid grounds are confirmed, a correction, withdrawal, explanation, apology statement or any other relevant note shall be published immediately.

 

2. Duties of Reviewers

CONJ applies a blind arbitration system. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to an author’s apparent race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation, social class or institutional affiliation. 

 

Peer review and editorial decisions

The peer review process assists editor(s) in making decisions and communicating with authors. It is expected to contribute to the quality of the publication and help authors in improving their manuscript. Peer review is seen as an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. Reviews are to be conducted objectively, and any feedback should be formulated clearly and provided with supporting arguments. The feedback should be offered with a view to helping authors improve their submissions.

 

Acknowledgement of sources

During a review, the reviewer is expected to identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers are expected to notify the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity or overlap between manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (either published or unpublished) of which tey have personal knowledge.

 

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received by CONJ for review are confidential documents and are treated as such; they are not shown or discussed with others beyond the invited reviewers. The stance of confidentiality also applies to the reviewers whether they decline or agree to the invitation to review the submission.  Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Also, referees should produce their reports in an objective manner supported by scientific arguments and do not bear any trace of the referee's personal information.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any reviewer who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein is expected to immediately notify the Editor-in-CHeif to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

 

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible is expected to immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

 

Standards of objectivity

Reviewers are expected to conduct their reviews objectively and formulate their feedback clearly with supporting arguments. It is expected the feedback will be formulated with the aim of helping authors improve their manuscripts and maintain a high standard of scholarly quality.

 

3. Duties of Authors

Authors submitting manuscript to CONJ are expected to present accurate accounts of the work described aa well as an objective discussion of its significance. Data must be represented accurately in the manuscript. Offering fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

 

Acknowledgment of sources

Authors must ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and cited publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

 

Authorship and contributorship

Only individuals who meet the following authorship criteria are to be listed as authors as they must take responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design execution data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, editing assistance, general support) should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named has been obtained.

The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication. It is the collective responsibility of all the individuals who have conducted the work to determine who should be listed as authors, and the order in which authors should be listed.

 

Conflicts of interest / competing interests

All authors must declare any competing interests relevant to the article. They must disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Such declarations must occur at the earliest stage possible by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

 

Data sharing and reproducibility

Data should be available upon reasonable request from the authors as long as it does not violate protection of human subjects or other valid privacy concerns.

 

Errors in published work

Should authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the Journal Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper as is warranted.

 

Hazards and human or animal subjects

Whether the work involves the use of human participants or animals, the authors must ensure that all procedures for informing the participants and procedures for data collection were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

 

Multiple, duplicate redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal or authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal at a time. This constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

 

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works. If they have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the submitted manuscript should also be cited.

Authors submitting their work to CONJ for publication as original articles need to confirm that the submitted works represent their own contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works without clearly citing the source. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. 

Where plagiarism is suspected as occurring, the manuscript will be returned to the author with relevant notification.

 

Peer review

Authors are expected to participate in the peer review process. They are expected to cooperate by responding promptly to requests for additional data, clarifications or other questions. In the case of an initial decision of ‘revisions necessary’, authors are expected to respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically (point by point) and in a timely period should they decide to revise their manuscript. If the author decides not to revise the manuscript as suggested by the reviewers and Ediotr-in-Chief, the author is expected to notify the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw the submission.

 

4. Duties of the translator

The translator provides practical support for the CONJ Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board and follows the COPE Code of Conduct. The translator(s) engage in maintaining best practices in accordance with high translation standards.

 

Handling of misconduct or unethical behavior

The translator, together with the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher is expected to take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

In cases where alleged or proven scholarly misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism is brought to the attention of the translator, the CONJ Editor-in-Chief will be notified. All forms of misconduct are taken seriously and will result in necessary action in accordance with COPE https://publicationethics.org/ guidelines. Examples of misconduct include (but are not limited to) affiliation misrepresentation, breaches in copyright/use of third-party material without appropriate permissions, citation manipulation, duplicate submission/publication, avoiding international standards of research ethics, image or data manipulation/fabrication, peer review manipulation, plagiarism, text-recycling/self-plagiarism, undisclosed competing interests and/or unethical research.

Measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question may include the following; prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. 

 

5. Duties of the publisher

The publisher provides practical support for the CONJ Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board and follows the COPE Code of Conduct. The publisher(s) engage in maintaining best practices in accordance with high publishing standards.

 

Handling of misconduct or unethical behavior

The publisher, together with the Editor-in-Chief and the translator is expected to take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

In cases where alleged or proven scholarly misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism is brought to the attention of the publisher, the CONJ Editor-in-Chief will be notified. All forms of misconduct are taken seriously and will result in necessary action in accordance with COPE https://publicationethics.org/ guidelines. Examples of misconduct include (but are not limited to) affiliation misrepresentation, breaches in copyright/use of third-party material without appropriate permissions, citation manipulation, duplicate submission/publication, avoiding international standards of research ethics, image or data manipulation/fabrication, peer review manipulation, plagiarism, text-recycling/self-plagiarism, undisclosed competing interests and/or unethical research.

Measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question may include the following: prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. 

 

Intellectual property

CONJ is committed to open access publishing, ensuring there is global access to the publications. CONJ emphasizes the rights of authors to retain copyright of their work and to license that work in ways that encourages sharing and reuse. The publisher protects that intellectual property and copyrights inherited by the publication of the articles and performs legal follow-up of possible infringements.

 

Access to and preservation of journal content

CONJ will preserve and host the journal contents without charge to authors or readers even if the journal is dissolved and/or the journal ceases to publish. The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly publications and ensures accessibility by maintaining a digital archive as well as submission to indexing databases. 

 

6.     Duties of Readers

Journal readers shall refrain from violating the copyright of scientific articles and not share or disseminate full-text files of articles on social media or any other online platform without the permission of the publisher. Readers should report any publications suspected of publication ethics, plagiarism or typos by contacting the Editor-in-Chief at https://www.cano-acio.ca/page/ContactCONJEditor.

October 2, 2024

Editorial Board

Editor-in-Chief:

Margaret I. Fitch, RN, PhD, 207 Chisholm Avenue, Toronto, ON M4C 4V9; 416-690-0369; www.cano-acio.ca/ContactCONJEditor

 

Editorial Board:

Karine Bilodeau, inf., PhD, professeure adjointe, Faculté des science infirmières, Université de Montréal, 2375 chemin Côte-Ste-Catherine, bureau 7101, Montréal, QC H3T 1A8; 514-343-6111, poste 43254; karine.bilodeau.2@umontreal.ca

Manon Lemonde, IA, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street N, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5; Manon.Lemonde@uoit.ca

Dawn Stacey, RN, PhD, University of Ottawa, School of Nursing, 451 Smyth Road (Rm 1118), Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5; dawn.stacey@uottawa.ca

Fay J. Strohschein, RN, PhD(c), Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Nursing Counsellor, Geriatric Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montréal, QC H3T 1E2; 514-340-8222, ext. 3864; Fay.strohschein@mail.mcgill.ca

Sally Thorne, RN, PhD, FCAHS, University of British Columbia, T201-2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 2B5; 604-822-7482; sally.thorne@nursing.ubc.ca

Author Fees

No fees are charged to authors for publishing within the Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal.

ISSN: 2368-8076