Nature Reviews Cancer Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

Nature Reviews Cancer publishes several formats, all focused on expert synthesis rather than original data.

Reviews are thorough treatments of a topic, written to be authoritative references for the field. They typically cover the full scope of a subfield, from molecular mechanisms through clinical implications. The editors commission Reviews on topics where the field has advanced enough to warrant a new synthesis. If a recent Nature Reviews Cancer article already covers your exact topic, the editors are unlikely to commission another one for at least 3-4 years unless there have been major developments that change the field's direction.

Perspectives are shorter and more argumentative. They present a specific viewpoint, propose a new framework, or challenge prevailing assumptions. A strong Perspective for Nature Reviews Cancer might argue that a widely accepted cancer hallmark needs revision based on recent evidence, or propose a new therapeutic strategy that integrates previously separate findings.

The editorial workflow at Nature Reviews Cancer is more collaborative than at most journals.

1. Commission: the editor reaches out with a topic, or you send a pre-submission inquiry
2. Planning discussion: you agree on scope, angle, length, figure count, and deadline (usually 3-6 months)
3. Annotated outline: you submit a structured outline with section headings, figure concepts, and box topics
4. Outline feedback: the editor provides guidance before you begin full writing
5. Full draft submission: complete text with rough figure drafts
6. Peer review: 2-3 expert reviewers (single-blind), typically 1-2 rounds
7. Revision: address reviewer comments with editor guidance
8. Figure production: the art team redraws all figures (4-6 weeks)
9. Proofs: you review and approve text and figures
10. Publication

The annotated outline stage is where you negotiate the review's intellectual structure. It's worth investing real time here. Include 1-2 sentences per section describing what you plan to cover, identify the key papers you'll discuss, and sketch the figure concepts. Editors appreciate outlines that identify knowledge gaps and open questions, not just summaries of what's known.

Nature Reviews Cancer uses the same figure production workflow as all Nature Reviews titles. You submit concept drafts; the journal produces publication-quality figures.

What to submit:

• Rough sketches (digital or hand-drawn) with clear labels
• PowerPoint slides showing pathway diagrams, timelines, or comparative frameworks
• Annotated screenshots or adapted figures (with permission) from published papers
• Tables or data that you want visualized
• Written descriptions of what each figure should communicate

Guidelines for effective figure drafts:

• Label every element explicitly
• Include a written description alongside each figure draft (2-3 sentences explaining the concept)
• Indicate spatial relationships (what connects to what, what's upstream/downstream)
• Specify which elements are essential vs. flexible for the art team
• If adapting from a published source, cite the source and note what changes you want

What makes strong Nature Reviews Cancer figures:

• Signaling pathway diagrams showing drug targets and resistance mechanisms
• Tumor microenvironment schematics with cell type interactions
• Timeline figures showing the evolution of treatment paradigms
• Comparison panels (responders vs. non-responders, primary vs. metastatic)
• Integrative figures connecting molecular biology to clinical outcomes

The art team at Nature Reviews is highly skilled, but they're scientists, not mind-readers. The more specific your instructions, the fewer rounds of revision you'll need. Figures typically go through 1-2 revision rounds between you and the art team, so it's worth getting the initial drafts right.

Nature Reviews Cancer uses the standard Nature reference style.

Key formatting rules:

• References numbered in order of first appearance
• Superscript numbers in text, after punctuation
• Up to 5 authors listed; 6+ uses first 5 then "et al."
• Journal names abbreviated per standard conventions
• Volume bold, page range, year in parentheses

Example journal article:

1. Zhang, Y., Liu, T., Chen, W., Patel, S. R. & Williams, J. K. Immune checkpoint resistance mechanisms in microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 26, 112-128 (2026).

Example preprint (increasingly accepted):

1. Garcia, M. L. & Thompson, R. K. Single-cell atlas of the pancreatic tumor microenvironment. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2026.01.15.123456 (2026).

Nature Reviews Cancer articles typically cite 150-300 references. The editors expect thorough coverage of the relevant literature, including the most recent publications. If your reference list is missing obvious recent papers, reviewers will flag this. Keep your literature search current through the revision stage.

Clinical trial references should include the ClinicalTrials.gov identifier where applicable. Preprints are increasingly cited in Nature Reviews Cancer, especially for fast-moving areas like immunotherapy or CRISPR therapeutics, but they should be clearly identified as preprints.

Nature Reviews Cancer Reviews include a brief unstructured abstract of approximately 150-200 words.

The abstract for a review should:

• Frame the topic and its current relevance
• State what advances or themes the review covers
• Highlight the review's unique contribution (new synthesis, resolved controversy, identified gaps)
• Avoid citations, abbreviations, or figure references

Many Reviews also include "Key points" (4-6 bullet points) that appear in a highlighted box in the published article. These function as an executive summary. The editor will specify whether Key points are expected for your article type.

Word is the standard and expected format for Nature Reviews Cancer.

Word submissions:

• Double-spaced, Times New Roman 12-point
• Numbered pages
• Figures submitted as separate files (any format for rough drafts)
• Reference list at end of document

LaTeX:

• Technically accepted but very rarely used
• No equations or complex notation in review articles
• Word is the practical default

Nature Reviews Cancer articles are entirely narrative text, figures, and references. There's nothing here that requires LaTeX's equation handling, so Word is the practical choice. Editors and production staff work in Word, and using it avoids unnecessary format conversion.

1. Boxes are expected in Reviews. Most full-length Reviews include 1-3 boxes (sidebar panels) covering specific subtopics in focused detail. Common box topics include glossary of terms, clinical trial summaries, technical method explanations, or disease subtype comparisons. Boxes are typically 300-600 words each. Propose them in your annotated outline.

2. Clinical relevance should be woven throughout. Even Reviews focused on basic cancer biology are expected to connect findings to clinical implications. Nature Reviews Cancer readers include clinician-scientists, not just bench researchers. If you're reviewing a molecular pathway, discuss its therapeutic targeting potential.

3. The journal plans topics 12-18 months ahead. If you're proposing a topic via pre-submission inquiry, check the journal's recent and forthcoming content to avoid overlap. The editors maintain an internal editorial calendar and will decline proposals that duplicate planned or recently published reviews.

4. Figure legends are substantial. Unlike primary research journals where figure legends are brief, Nature Reviews Cancer figure legends often run 100-200 words each. They need to be self-contained explanations that a reader can understand without reading the full text.

5. Competing interests for oncology reviews. Cancer researchers frequently have relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Nature Reviews Cancer requires detailed disclosure of all consulting fees, advisory board roles, speaker honoraria, and equity holdings in companies relevant to the review topic. The editors will ask for clarification if disclosures seem incomplete relative to the topic covered.

6. The "at a glance" standard. Nature Reviews Cancer editors evaluate whether a reader can grasp the review's main messages by looking at the figures and reading the Key points alone. If the visual narrative doesn't stand on its own, the figures need work.

A Nature Reviews Cancer Review follows this structure:

1. Title (informative, descriptive)
2. Author names and affiliations
3. Abstract (150-200 words, unstructured)
4. Key points (4-6 bullets, if requested)
5. Introduction (why this topic, why now)
6. Main sections (organized by theme, not chronologically)
7. Boxes (1-3 sidebars on focused subtopics)
8. Conclusions and outlook (open questions, future directions)
9. Acknowledgments
10. Competing interests
11. Peer review information (added by editors)
12. References
13. Figure drafts (separate files)

The main body should use descriptive section headings that convey content, not generic labels. "KRAS-mutant cancers: from undruggable to druggable" is better than "KRAS mutations in cancer." Nature Reviews Cancer readers expect to learn something from the heading alone.

The Conclusions section should emphasize open questions and future directions rather than merely summarizing what was covered. What are the 3-5 most important unanswered questions in this area? What experiments or clinical trials would resolve them? This forward-looking perspective is what distinguishes an outstanding review from a competent one.

These issues cause the most delays at Nature Reviews Cancer:

• Figure drafts too vague for the art team (always include written descriptions)
• Incomplete competing interest disclosures for oncology-related relationships
• Reference lists missing recent high-impact papers in the field
• Sections organized chronologically rather than thematically
• Boxes that overlap with main text content
• Missing connections between basic science and clinical implications

If you also publish primary research in cancer biology, see our Cancer Cell formatting requirements guide and our Nature Medicine formatting requirements page for those journal-specific conventions.

For the official submission guidelines, visit the Nature Reviews Cancer author page.