Get your Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology paper right the first time: a ready-made structure with the right abstract and citations, so editors see your science, not formatting slips.
4.4
Authored by Sumalatha Gangadhar | Published on 7 August, 2026
Submitting to Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology goes smoothly when your draft already matches the journal's own rules. Editors screen new manuscripts against the Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology guide for authors before peer review, so formatting, structure, and required statements should be right on the first draft rather than repaired during upload. This template sets that structure up for you.
It is a manuscript shell aligned to Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. It covers front matter, the abstract the journal expects, a body organized to the journal's article types, and a reference list in the journal's required style. Confirm current scope and article types on the Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology journal page before you draft.
Prepare the title, authors, affiliations, and ORCID iDs. Write the abstract to the journal's rule and word limit, organize the body to the article type, and apply the required reference style from the first citation. Complete every declaration (ethics, competing interests, funding, data availability) the Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology guide for authors lists, and cite figures and tables in order.
The common failure modes are formatting or reference style that does not match the guide for authors, missing required statements, and an incomplete portal checklist. Clear all three against the Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology guide for authors before you submit.
The shell mirrors what editorial staff check first: article-type fit, the abstract rules, required declarations, and the journal's reference style. For more detail see the author resources. When your draft is ready, upload it through Editorial Manager.
| Element | Crit Rev Oncol Hematology requirement |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Unstructured abstract with a maximum of 250 words. The abstract should briefly state the purpose of research, principal results and major conclusions. Abstracts must be able to stand alone. References should be avoided, but if essential must cite author(s) and year(s). Non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential must be defined at first mention |
| Main text | Review articles should not exceed 8,000 words (excluding tables and figures), with a maximum of 6 figures and/or tables. A 'Critical View' section is mandatory at the end of the review, highlighting the author's own perspective, how the review distinguishes itself from existing literature, and how it benefits current knowledge. Authors must relay the exact scope of the review and depth of coverage |
| Declarations | Ethics approval/consent as applicable; competing interests; funding; data availability |
| Figures/tables | Publication-ready; cited in order |
| Supplemental | Upload separately when used |
| Keywords | 1 to 7 keywords required for indexing purposes. Keywords should be written in English. Authors should try to avoid keywords consisting of multiple words (using 'and' or 'of'). Abbreviations should only be used in keywords if they are firmly established in the field |
| References | Author-date (Harvard-style). In-text citations use author name(s) and year: single author by name and year; two authors by both names and year; three or more authors by first author's name followed by 'et al.' and year. Reference list arranged alphabetically then chronologically if necessary. Journal names abbreviated according to LTWA (List of Title Word Abbreviations). Maximum of 100 references recommended, though exceptions can be made with editor approval |
| Peer review | Double-blind/double-anonymized. Author identities are concealed from reviewers and vice versa. Submissions are initially assessed by editors for suitability, then typically sent to a minimum of two reviewers for independent expert assessment of scientific quality |
| Submission | www.editorialmanager.com/CROH |
Read the Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology guide for authors once before drafting and once before upload. Draft the abstract after results are stable. Set the reference style before adding citations. Keep a cover letter that states your contribution and fit to Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology in under a page.
Skim two or three recent Crit Rev Oncol Hematology papers to calibrate depth and figure style. Make the novelty clear in the first two pages. Deposit data and code when the policy on the Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology journal page requires it. Disclose any preprint or conference version with identifiers in the cover letter.
Do one focused pass against the Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology guide for authors: scope, length, reference style, required declarations, and figure quality. Then submit through Editorial Manager.