Instructions for Reviewers

We are dedicated to contributing significant advancements in the fields of infectious diseases and tropical medicine.

Our single-blind peer review process is meticulously designed to uphold the highest standards of quality and originality in the scholarly work we publish. We believe in fostering knowledge through rigorous evaluation, collaboration, and constructive feedback. Our process is not only a gateway for assessing scholarly merit but also an opportunity for authors to enhance their work based on the insightful evaluations of their peers. Below, we outline the steps involved in our peer review process.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

  1. Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their research papers through our designated submission system, Publishing Manager.
  2. Editorial Assessment: Upon submission, the manuscript is reviewed by the editor-in-chief, a deputy editor, or a section editor. They assess whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, standards, and style and check for originality/plagiarism. The first decision, which may include outright rejection, is typically communicated within 10 days.
  3. Reviewer Assignment: If the manuscript passes this initial assessment, it is either assigned directly to external reviewers by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor, or section editor, or assigned to an associate editor who will then select appropriate reviewers. Our journal follows a single-blind review process.
  4. Peer Review: The assigned reviewers are given 20 days to evaluate the manuscript. They provide recommendations on publication, revisions, or rejection. The options include:
    1. Acceptance: The paper is accepted as it is.
    2. Minor Revisions: Minor changes are requested from the authors.
    3. Major Revisions: Substantial changes are needed; a re-review may be required.
    4. Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
  5. Revisions and Resubmission: Authors are invited to resubmit revised manuscripts within 30 days, but they must resubmit within 4 months from the receipt of the complete reviewer reports. Manuscripts not resubmitted within this 4-month period will be withdrawn.
  6. Final Decision: The final decision is made by the editor-in-chief, a deputy editor, or a section editor based on the reviewers’ feedback and the quality of the revised manuscript. This decision is typically communicated within 7 days of resubmission.

Instructions for Reviewers

Peer review is the cornerstone of the scientific process, ensuring that only high-quality research with significant scientific merit reaches publication, thereby fostering trust within the scientific community. By meticulously scrutinizing the methodology, data analysis, and interpretation presented in manuscripts, reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining the standards of excellence expected in scientific research.

Reviewers should adhere to the basic principles as established by COPE.

As per journal policies, the peer review is conducted for transparency on the Publishing Manager. Therefore, the reviewers are asked to create an account in the system to receive an official invitation to review an article. Following the invitation to review, reviewers will receive the article abstract to understand the aims, key points, and conclusions of the manuscript and decide whether to accept the review.

Before starting the review, please evaluate the following issues:

  • Does the article match my expertise? If not, you can refuse the review and suggest a possible reviewer who is an expert in the field.
  • Do I have enough time to review the manuscript?
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest to declare? For more information, please check the section “COI: Application to Reviewers and Editors.

Once the request for review has been accepted, reviewers have 21 days to finalize the report.

Reviewers have four options to provide an overall feedback on the article:

  • Accepted: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Revised: Minor revisions must be addressed by the authors for the paper to be considered for publication.
  • Revised Major: The manuscript presents severe criticisms that must be addressed by the authors. The paper’s corrections will be re-evaluated by the reviewers, who will decide whether to accept the article or reject it.
  • Rejected: The article presents significant flaws that cannot be addressed.

AI use in peer-review

According to ICMJE guidelines, reviewers may use AI technology to aid their review after obtaining permission from the journal. However, editors should be aware that using AI in manuscript processing can breach confidentiality. Manuscripts often contain sensitive or proprietary information that must remain within the peer review process. Therefore, peer reviewers are advised not to upload manuscripts to generative AI tools. Reviewers should also recognize that AI can produce authoritative-sounding output that may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Despite advancements, generative AI tools have significant limitations, including outdated knowledge and the potential to generate nonsensical, biased, or false information.

If any part of the manuscript evaluation was supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to transparently declare the use of such tools in their peer review report.


How to write a report

When reviewing the article, please give due consideration to the following items:


  • Is the topic of the paper aligned with the aims and scopes of the Journal? Does the study bring any innovation to the medical field? Are there other similar studies in the literature? Does the study reach the qualitative standard of the Journal? Are the findings of sufficient scientific significance to warrant publication? Does sufficient literature evidence support the outcomes?


  • Title: Does the title clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does the Abstract reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does the introduction outline the author’s objectives and clearly articulate the problem under investigation? Typically, the introduction should provide a succinct summary of pertinent research to offer context and elucidate how the author’s findings either challenge or expand upon existing literature.
  • Methodology: Does the author accurately describe the data collection process? Is the chosen methodology appropriate for addressing the research question? Is there adequate information provided for replication? Does the article detail the procedures followed in a logical manner? If novel methods are employed, are they sufficiently elucidated? Was the sampling method appropriate? Are equipment and materials adequately described? Does the article specify the type of data collected and provide precise measurement descriptions?
  • Results: Have the authors effectively communicated their research findings in written form? Are the results presented clearly and in a logical sequence? Consideration should be given to the appropriateness of the statistical analyses conducted. Are the statistical methods accurate? If statistical analysis is unfamiliar, please notify the editor when submitting your report.
  • Discussion/Conclusions: Are the claims made in these sections substantiated by the results and deemed reasonable? Have the authors discussed how the results align with expectations and previous research? Does the article support or challenge existing theories? Does the conclusion articulate how the research contributes to advancing scientific knowledge? Have the study’s limitations been adequately addressed and analyzed?


  • Are figures readable and of high quality? Are data adequately reported in tables? Are the data reported in figures and tables coherent with those reported in the manuscript?


  • Are references appropriate, relevant, and recent? Are there too many self-citations?


  • Is there any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that the authors must declare?
  • Disclosed potential COIs should include any relevant commercial or other source of funding for either author(s) or the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s), or organization(s).
  • Potential competing interests include consultancies, employment, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications and registrations, and grants or other funding.


  • When reporting experiments on animals and human subjects, the authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Moreover, for studies on human subjects, all investigators should ensure that the planning, conduct, and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure their sufficiency.
  • According to the study’s design, is informed consent from patients required? If so, can the statement be considered valid?

Please note it is mandatory to provide the authors with thorough and detailed comments in order to improve the manuscript and reach the qualitative standard of the Journal. Comments should be articulated thoughtfully to ensure that the author comprehends the necessary actions for enhancing their paper, rather than solely highlighting its deficiencies. In case reviewers suspect misconduct, they should not independently investigate, but promptly inform the editors about this suspect.

In order to streamline the feedback preparation process, a checklist that summarizes some of the abovementioned considerations is provided on Publishing Manager, the journal’s online system to manage the peer-review process. This allows reviewers to easily indicate the improvements authors should address and bear in mind the evaluation parameters.

Authors are requested to provide a list of changes and a point-to-point reply letter to reviewers’ comments when revising their article. The editor may evaluate the revised version if only minor revisions were requested, or it may be sent back to the original reviewers. Subsequently, you will be prompted to confirm whether the revisions are deemed satisfactory or if more revisions are required.