Reviewer Resources
Tools and guidance for reviewers assessing immunization manuscripts.
Journal at a Glance
ISSN: 2577-137X
DOI Prefix: 10.14302/issn.2577-137X
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer reviewed open access journal
Scope Alignment
Immunization policy, vaccine development, safety monitoring, immunogenicity, delivery systems, and global vaccine equity. We prioritize evidence that strengthens public health outcomes and informs immunization programs.
Publishing Model
Open access, single blind peer review, and rapid publication after acceptance and production checks. Metadata validation and DOI registration are included.
JI provides resources to help reviewers deliver thorough, fair, and timely evaluations of immunization manuscripts.
Resources are designed to support consistent decisions across diverse vaccine and program topics.
Review Templates
Structured prompts for consistent evaluations.
Reporting Checklists
CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA guidance.
Ethics Guidance
Participant privacy and consent expectations.
Data Standards
Registry and surveillance transparency expectations.
- Assess vaccination context and eligibility criteria
- Check clarity of program or trial protocols
- Evaluate confounder control and bias mitigation
- Review data availability statements
- Provide constructive, prioritized feedback
If questions arise during review, contact the editorial office for guidance on policies or reporting standards. Editors can clarify expectations for specialized methods or program evaluations.
Sample review structures and decision templates are available to help reviewers organize feedback. These examples emphasize balanced, evidence based commentary that supports authors.
Review prompts cover study design, data integrity, and public health relevance so feedback remains focused and comparable across submissions. Using prompts reduces omissions and improves consistency.
Prompts can also help align comments with immunization program needs.
Prompts are updated as reporting standards evolve.
Updated prompts clarify expectations for new methods.
Prompts support fair assessments.
Prompts streamline evaluation.
Reviewers may prioritize sections such as methods, data reporting, and policy implications depending on study type. Explicit focus helps authors understand which revisions are most critical.
This clarity also helps editors synthesize decisions.
Focused reviews make revision cycles more efficient.
Clear focus supports consistency across reviews.
Focus notes help align review expectations.
Focused guidance improves revision quality.
Focused reviews support fairness.
Focus improves decision clarity.
Focus supports consistency.
JI is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in immunization research and program evaluation. We emphasize reproducible methods, clear reporting of vaccine outcomes, and ethical compliance across all article types.
The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].
We encourage continuous improvement in reporting practices and share updates that help the community maintain high standards in vaccine science, safety monitoring, and public health impact.
Need Review Support?
Contact the editorial office for reviewer resources and assistance.
