Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace

This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.

Open Access

Recommended

The Lancet Oncology — Template for authors

Publisher: Elsevier

Your data will always be in your control. Learn more

Get started with a free account

— or sign up using email —

See how it works

Guideline source

Categories	Rank	Trend in last 3 yrs
Oncology	#3 of 340	-

Journal quality:

High

Last 4 years overview: 766 Published Papers | 40591 Citations

Indexed in: Scopus

Last updated: 18/07/2020

Related journals

Insights

General info

Related Journals

Open Access

Integrative Cancer Therapies

SAGE

Quality:

High

CiteRatio: 4.0

SJR: 0.73

SNIP: 0.924

Open Access

United European Gastroenterology Journal

SAGE

Quality:

High

CiteRatio: 6.2

SJR: 1.667

SNIP: 1.516

Open Access

Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

SAGE

Quality:

High

CiteRatio: 6.8

SJR: 2.272

SNIP: 1.641

Open Access

Recommended

Leukemia

Nature

Quality:

High

CiteRatio: 16.0

SJR: 4.539

SNIP: 2.28

Journal Performance & Insights

Impact Factor

CiteRatio

Determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

33.752

5% from 2018

Impact factor for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2019
Year	Value
2019	33.752
2018	35.386
2017	36.418
2016	33.9

Graph view

53.0

7% from 2019

CiteRatio for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2020
Year	Value
2020	53.0
2019	49.4
2018	54.0
2017	54.0
2016	48.4

Graph view

Insights

Impact factor of this journal has decreased by 5% in last year.
This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

Insights

CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 7% in last years.
This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

13.53

14% from 2019

SJR for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2020
Year	Value
2020	13.53
2019	15.65
2018	18.073
2017	16.085
2016	14.07

Graph view

9.914

5% from 2019

SNIP for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2020
Year	Value
2020	9.914
2019	9.486
2018	9.575
2017	9.922
2016	9.862

Graph view

Insights

SJR of this journal has decreased by 14% in last years.
This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

Insights

SNIP of this journal has increased by 5% in last years.
This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

Elsevier

The Lancet Oncology

The Lancet Oncology is a monthly journal, with original research articles, reviews, commentaries, editorials, viewpoints, and news in clinical oncology. The Lancet Oncology publishes interesting and informative reviews on any topic connected with oncology, and considers any original research contribution that advocates change in, or illuminates, oncological clinical practice. Manuscripts must be solely the work of the author(s) stated, must not have been previously published elsewhere, and must not be under consideration by another journal. All papers should be written to be clearly understandable to the journal’s readers in a wide range of specialties and countries. The journal publishes a range of article types that encompass all aspects of oncological medicine: Comment, Correspondence, News, Cancer and Society, Article, Review, Historical Review, Health-care Development, and Personal View. Read Less

Oncology

Medicine

Last updated on	18 Jul 2020
ISSN	1470-2045
Impact Factor	Maximum - 8.294
Open Access	Yes
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy	Green
Plagiarism Check	Available via Turnitin
Endnote Style	Download Available
Bibliography Name	elsarticle-num
Citation Type	Numbered [25]
Bibliography Example	Yamakage A, Sato M, Yada K, Kashiwaya S, Tanaka Y. Anomalous Josephson current in superconducting topological insulator. Phys Rev B. 2013;87(10):100510.

Top papers written in this journal

Journal Article • DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70025-7 •

Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial

Roger Stupp¹, Monika E. Hegi¹, •

01 May 2009 - Lancet Oncology

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: In 2004, a randomised phase III trial by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC) reported improved median and 2-year survival for patients with glioblastoma treated with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide and rad... BACKGROUND: In 2004, a randomised phase III trial by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC) reported improved median and 2-year survival for patients with glioblastoma treated with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide and radiotherapy. We report the final results with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. METHODS: Adult patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were randomly assigned to receive either standard radiotherapy or identical radiotherapy with concomitant temozolomide followed by up to six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide. The methylation status of the methyl-guanine methyl transferase gene, MGMT, was determined retrospectively from the tumour tissue of 206 patients. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00006353. FINDINGS: Between Aug 17, 2000, and March 22, 2002, 573 patients were assigned to treatment. 278 (97%) of 286 patients in the radiotherapy alone group and 254 (89%) of 287 in the combined-treatment group died during 5 years of follow-up. Overall survival was 27.2% (95% CI 22.2-32.5) at 2 years, 16.0% (12.0-20.6) at 3 years, 12.1% (8.5-16.4) at 4 years, and 9.8% (6.4-14.0) at 5 years with temozolomide, versus 10.9% (7.6-14.8), 4.4% (2.4-7.2), 3.0% (1.4-5.7), and 1.9% (0.6-4.4) with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.7; p<0.0001). A benefit of combined therapy was recorded in all clinical prognostic subgroups, including patients aged 60-70 years. Methylation of the MGMT promoter was the strongest predictor for outcome and benefit from temozolomide chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Benefits of adjuvant temozolomide with radiotherapy lasted throughout 5 years of follow-up. A few patients in favourable prognostic categories survive longer than 5 years. MGMT methylation status identifies patients most likely to benefit from the addition of temozolomide. FUNDING: EORTC, NCIC, Nelia and Amadeo Barletta Foundation, Schering-Plough. read more

Topics:

Temozolomide (58%)58% related to the paper, Survival rate (54%)54% related to the paper, Concomitant (50%)50% related to the paper

View PDF

6,161 Citations

Journal Article • DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70285-7 •

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Ann-Lii Cheng¹, Yoon-Koo Kang, •

01 Jan 2009 - Lancet Oncology

Abstract:

Summary Background Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double... Summary Background Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752. Findings 271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 5·56–7·56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4·2 months (3·75–5·46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·50–0·93]; p=0·014). Median TTP was 2·8 months (2·63–3·58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1·4 months (1·35–1·55) in the placebo group (HR 0·57 [0·42–0·79]; p=0·0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10·7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6·0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3·4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11·4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7·4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation. Interpretation Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. read more

Topics:

Sorafenib (61%)61% related to the paper, Placebo-controlled study (53%)53% related to the paper, Hepatocellular carcinoma (53%)53% related to the paper,

View PDF

4,890 Citations

Journal Article • DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70393-X •

Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

Rafael Rosell, Enric Carcereny, •

01 Mar 2012 - Lancet Oncology

Abstract:

Summary Background Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy f... Summary Background Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. Methods We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (>18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 ) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. Findings Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5–5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25–0·54; p vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. Interpretation Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Funding Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Tematica de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer. read more

Topics:

Gefitinib (57%)57% related to the paper, Erlotinib (56%)56% related to the paper, Erlotinib Hydrochloride (56%)56% related to the paper,

View PDF

4,791 Citations

Journal Article • DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70364-X •

Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial

Tetsuya Mitsudomi, Satoshi Morita¹, •

01 Feb 2010 - Lancet Oncology

Abstract:

Summary Background Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) gene respond well to the EGFR-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. However, whether gefitinib is better than standard platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients selected by EGFR mutation is... Summary Background Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) gene respond well to the EGFR-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. However, whether gefitinib is better than standard platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients selected by EGFR mutation is uncertain. Methods We did an open label, phase 3 study (WJTOG3405) with recruitment between March 31, 2006, and June 22, 2009, at 36 centres in Japan. 177 chemotherapy-naive patients aged 75 years or younger and diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer or postoperative recurrence harbouring EGFR mutations (either the exon 19 deletion or L858R point mutation) were randomly assigned, using a minimisation technique, to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day orally; n=88) or cisplatin (80 mg/m 2 , intravenously) plus docetaxel (60 mg/m 2 , intravenously; n=89), administered every 21 days for three to six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Survival analysis was done with the modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with UMIN (University Hospital Medical Information Network in Japan), number 000000539. Findings Five patients were excluded (two patients were found to have thyroid and colon cancer after randomisation, one patient had an exon 18 mutation, one patient had insufficient consent, and one patient showed acute allergic reaction to docetaxel). Thus, 172 patients (86 in each group) were included in the survival analyses. The gefitinib group had significantly longer progression-free survival compared with the cisplatin plus docetaxel goup, with a median progression-free survival time of 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0–13·9) versus 6·3 months (5·8–7·8; HR 0·489, 95% CI 0·336–0·710, log-rank p Interpretation Patients with lung cancer who are selected by EGFR mutations have longer progression-free survival if they are treated with gefitinib than if they are treated with cisplatin plus docetaxel. Funding West Japan Oncology Group (WJOG): a non-profit organisation supported by unrestricted donations from several pharmaceutical companies. read more

Topics:

Gefitinib (61%)61% related to the paper, Docetaxel (60%)60% related to the paper, Icotinib (57%)57% related to the paper,

View PDF

3,721 Citations

Journal Article • DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70184-X •

Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study

Caicun Zhou¹, Yi-Long Wu², •

01 Aug 2011 - Lancet Oncology

Abstract:

Summary Background Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR m... Summary Background Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods We undertook an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 22 centres in China. Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received either oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, or up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation procedure and were stratified according to EGFR mutation type, histological subtype (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), and smoking status. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed in patients with confirmed disease who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00874419, and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up. Findings 83 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 82 to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 82 in the erlotinib group and 72 in the chemotherapy group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in erlotinib-treated patients than in those on chemotherapy (13.1 [95% CI 10.58–16.53] vs 4.6 [4.21–5.42] months; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.10–0.26; p vs no patients with either event on erlotinib); the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects with erlotinib were increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [4%] of 83 patients) and skin rash (two [2%] patients). Chemotherapy was also associated with increased treatment-related serious adverse events (ten [14%] of 72 patients [decreased platelet count, n=8; decreased neutrophil count, n=1; hepatic dysfunction, n=1] vs two [2%] of 83 patients [both hepatic dysfunction]). Interpretation Compared with standard chemotherapy, erlotinib conferred a significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and was associated with more favourable tolerability. These findings suggest that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (China); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality. read more

Topics:

Erlotinib Hydrochloride (63%)63% related to the paper, Gefitinib (62%)62% related to the paper, Erlotinib (59%)59% related to the paper,

View PDF

3,657 Citations

Also popular among researchers

“

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds

Choose a template

Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates

Import a MS-Word file or start fresh

It takes only few seconds to import

View and edit your final output

SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines

Submit directly or Download

Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for The Lancet Oncology.

It automatically formats your research paper to Elsevier formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

Easy support from all your favorite tools

The Lancet Oncology format uses elsarticle-num citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write The Lancet Oncology in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the The Lancet Oncology guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the The Lancet Oncology guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the The Lancet Oncology guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in The Lancet Oncology?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the The Lancet Oncology citation style.

4. Can I use the The Lancet Oncology templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for The Lancet Oncology.

5. Can I use a manuscript in The Lancet Oncology that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper The Lancet Oncology that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in The Lancet Oncology?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in The Lancet Oncology.

7. Where can I find the template for the The Lancet Oncology?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per The Lancet Oncology's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the The Lancet Oncology's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. The Lancet Oncology an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's The Lancet Oncology is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like The Lancet Oncology?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like The Lancet Oncology?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using The Lancet Oncology?

After writing your paper autoformatting in The Lancet Oncology, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is The Lancet Oncology's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for The Lancet Oncology?

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for The Lancet Oncology. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour	Archiving policy
Green	Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue	Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow	Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White	Archiving not formally supported

FYI:

Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In The Lancet Oncology?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for The Lancet Oncology are:.

S. No.	Citation Style Type
1.	Author Year
2.	Numbered
3.	Numbered (Superscripted)
4.	Author Year (Cited Pages)
5.	Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the The Lancet Oncology?

16. Can I download The Lancet Oncology in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in The Lancet Oncology Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to The Lancet Oncology formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

“

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

”

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user

The Lancet Oncology — Template for authors

Related Journals

Journal Performance & Insights

Impact Factor

CiteRatio

33.752

53.0

Insights

Insights

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

13.53

9.914

Insights

Insights

The Lancet Oncology

Top papers written in this journal

Abstract:

Topics:

Abstract:

Topics:

Abstract:

Topics:

Abstract:

Topics:

Abstract:

Topics:

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

Freedom from formatting guidelines

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Frequently asked questions

Fast and reliable, built for complaince.

No word template required

Verifed journal formats

Trusted by academicians

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.