JACC CardioOncology Submission Guide

JACC: CardioOncology sits at a real boundary. That makes editorial fit harder, not easier.

Editors are usually asking:

• is this truly a cardio-oncology paper rather than a cardiology paper with cancer context
• does the result matter for cardiovascular care in patients with cancer
• is the translational or clinical consequence visible early
• would a cardio-oncology readership see this as practice-relevant, not just adjacent

That means audience discipline matters a lot. A study can be rigorous and still miss because its true readership is general cardiology, general oncology, or a narrower mechanistic venue.

The strongest submissions usually make the readership case obvious by the end of the abstract. Editors should not have to infer why a cardio-oncology team, and not just a cardiology or oncology team, needs this paper.

The live guide for authors is unusually helpful because it tells authors exactly what the journal expects the paper to do.

The practical implication is simple: JACC: CardioOncology rewards papers that already know exactly why they belong there.

That also means format choice is part of fit. A manuscript pushed into the wrong article type often signals that the authors know the topic matters but have not yet decided what the real editorial unit of the story is.

1. The paper is really a general cardiology paper

Some manuscripts study heart failure, vascular toxicity, imaging, or biomarkers in cancer settings, but the real consequence is still general cardiology. Those papers often fit better in broader cardiology venues.

2. The paper is really a general oncology paper

Other manuscripts live inside drug development or oncology outcomes, with cardiovascular findings acting more like secondary context than the main readership hook.

3. The clinical implication is too indirect

Mechanistic or epidemiologic work can fit here, but the journal guidance keeps pointing back to clinical care. If the link to care is thin, authors often overestimate fit.

Before submission, a cardio-oncology readiness check can tell you whether the paper is failing on audience, consequence, or format.

In our pre-submission review work with cardio-oncology manuscripts targeting JACC: CardioOncology, the strongest submissions make the patient-care consequence visible before the editor reaches the methods section. Official JACC: CardioOncology instructions explain the article types, the online submission route, relationship-with-industry disclosure expectations, and the question every manuscript should answer about clinical care of patients with cancer. The manuscript-specific problem is different: whether the abstract, figures, methods, endpoints, and cover letter prove that the work belongs in the cardio-oncology lane rather than a general cardiology, oncology, imaging, biomarker, or translational-medicine venue.

Cardiology or oncology ownership without a cardio-oncology decision

In our pre-submission review work with JACC: CardioOncology-targeted manuscripts, we often see technically rigorous papers where the title, abstract, central figure, and cover letter make the work look like general cardiology with cancer context or general oncology with cardiovascular side observations. The manuscript may include strong echocardiography, biomarker, heart-failure, arrhythmia, vascular-toxicity, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or survivorship data, but the paper does not name the cardio-oncology decision it changes. That makes the editor reconstruct the readership case from the results instead of seeing it in the first read. A stronger JACC: CardioOncology package names the cancer-therapy population, the cardiovascular problem, and the clinical or translational decision in the abstract. The methods section should show why the cohort, endpoints, follow-up window, imaging protocol, biomarker panel, toxicity adjudication, or mechanistic assay is specific enough for cardio-oncology. The cover letter should not say only that cancer and cardiovascular disease overlap. It should say what changes for cardio-oncology readers if the manuscript is published. If the natural redirect targets are JACC, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, Circulation, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Blood, or a specialty oncology journal, the manuscript needs to explain why JACC: CardioOncology is the primary home.

Check whether your JACC: CardioOncology abstract owns the cardio-oncology decision →

Biomarker, imaging, or outcomes association without actionability

In our review work with manuscripts targeting JACC: CardioOncology, another recurring pattern is a strong association table that does not yet create an action path. The manuscript may report a biomarker, strain-imaging measure, troponin signal, anthracycline exposure association, immune-checkpoint inhibitor toxicity pattern, radiation-dose relationship, or registry outcome with plausible clinical interest. Reviewers then ask whether the abstract, figures, methods, and limitations show what a cardio-oncology team should do differently. For JACC: CardioOncology, actionability does not always mean immediate practice change, but the manuscript should identify whether the result changes surveillance timing, risk stratification, therapy interruption, cardioprotective medication selection, survivorship follow-up, trial eligibility, mechanistic hypothesis, or patient counseling. The first figure and central illustration should make that pathway readable. A paper that stops at "associated with worse outcomes" often fits a broader outcomes journal; a paper that names the care implication, shows endpoint adjudication, reports sensitivity analyses, and frames the limitation honestly looks much more like a JACC: CardioOncology submission.

Check whether your JACC: CardioOncology evidence supports the care-impact claim →

Article-type mismatch that makes the package look larger or smaller than the evidence

In our pre-submission review work with JACC: CardioOncology submissions, article-type mismatch is a frequent preventable problem. Authors push descriptive cohorts into Original Investigation format when the evidence is closer to a Research Letter, submit narrative overviews that need the discipline of a State-of-the-Art Review or Primer, or treat a compelling clinical case as if it proves a general management pathway. The submission package should make the format obvious: structured abstract and manuscript word envelope for Original Investigations; concise evidence and single-message structure for Research Letters; patient consent and didactic reasoning for Clinical Case Challenges; and clearly scoped synthesis for Primers or State-of-the-Art Reviews. The cover letter, title page, abstract, figure plan, references, disclosure statements, IRB or consent language, data availability statement, and suggested reviewers should all support the chosen type. Redirect targets include JACC, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, JACC: CardioOncology Research Letters, Journal of Clinical Oncology, European Heart Journal, and cardio-oncology society venues. Choosing the right type reduces desk-screen friction before scientific reviewers evaluate the manuscript.

Check whether your JACC: CardioOncology article type fits the evidence package →

A Manusights review checks whether your paper clears the JACC: CardioOncology-specific readiness checks that official Elsevier and JACC instructions cannot evaluate from a generic Editorial Manager checklist. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee; submitted manuscripts are not used for model training.

A pre-submission cardio-oncology fit check is useful here because many avoidable misses are positioning errors, not fatal science errors.

JACC: CardioOncology submissions go through Elsevier's Editorial Manager, accessible from the JACC family Author Center and the journal's Guide for Authors. All editorial correspondence is addressed to the JACC: CardioOncology editorial staff at jacccardiooncology@acc.org.

JACC: CardioOncology is published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology and shares Editorial Manager infrastructure with the rest of the JACC family. The journal operates single-blind peer review: authors are blinded to reviewers; reviewers are generally blinded to each other.

JACC: CardioOncology requires these at first submission:

• main manuscript file with original research papers capped at 5,000 words (Title Page, Abstract Page, and Tables do not count toward the 5,000-word envelope; introduction through conclusion, references, and figure legends do)
• cover letter naming the Corresponding Author and establishing the cardio-oncology care, management, or translational conversation the paper changes
• structured abstract per the JACC family format
• author byline with ORCID iDs for all co-authors
• conflict-of-interest disclosure with all financial relationships, including industry consulting, equity, and licensing
• ethics statements for human-subjects work (IRB approval and informed consent) and animal protocols (IACUC) where applicable
• data and code availability statements with deposit references
• structured author contribution statement (CRediT)
• suggested reviewers and excluded reviewers with rationale
• registration of any clinical trial in ClinicalTrials.gov or equivalent registry (mandatory for trial reports)
• patient consent for case-based content (mandatory)
• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process
• $4,200 USD APC for the hybrid OA option (2026; the journal offers transformative-agreement coverage via Elsevier ScienceDirect)
• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

In our pre-submission review work for JACC: CardioOncology, the most common artifact-related issue is cover letters that argue cardiology importance OR oncology importance but not both. The journal's identity is the cardio-oncology bridge: submissions where the cover letter could equally appear at JACC (cardiology-only framing) or Journal of Clinical Oncology (oncology-only framing) face routine desk-rejection on the bridge-fit check, not on the underlying science.

In our pre-submission review work for JACC: CardioOncology, manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline shaped by the JACC family's editorial-board-meeting decision pattern.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and editorial-staff style check

At initial submission, the editorial staff verify compliance with JACC: CardioOncology style: word count against the 5,000-word envelope, structured abstract format, ethics references, clinical-trial registration where applicable, and the JACC family cover-letter conventions.

Day 5 to 21: Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor desk-screen

Once style-checked, the manuscript is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief who delegates to an Associate Editor. The Associate Editor determines whether the manuscript is of sufficient priority for JACC: CardioOncology and whether it should be sent for peer review. The bridge-fit check is the primary substantive filter at this stage.

Week 4 to 10: External peer review (single-blind)

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to reviewers under single-blind peer review. Once 2 reviews are completed, the submission is reviewed at the JACC: CardioOncology editorial board meeting where the Associate Editor presents the manuscript and the board reaches a consensus decision.

Week 10 to 18: Editorial board decision and revision rounds

The editorial-board-meeting decision pattern extends the first-decision timeline relative to single-editor journals. Revision cycles add 6-10 weeks each. The board structure is one of the editorial features that distinguishes the JACC family from other Elsevier cardiology journals.