--- 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 - [ ] 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 ```text [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] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```