Reviewer Guidance for Antimicrobial Research Quality
Peer reviewers ensure that IJANR publishes reliable, clinically meaningful antibiotic research. These guidelines support fair, constructive, and timely reviews.
Reviewer Priorities
- Scientific rigor and validity
- Resistance relevance
- Transparent reporting
- Ethical compliance
- Constructive feedback
Confidentiality
Manuscripts are confidential. Do not share, cite, or use unpublished data for personal research purposes.
Conflicts of Interest
Declare any conflicts that could affect objectivity. Decline reviews when conflicts may compromise impartiality.
Scientific Assessment
Evaluate experimental design, controls, statistics, and interpretation. Assess whether resistance claims are supported by data.
Constructive Feedback
Provide clear recommendations and actionable suggestions. Highlight strengths and identify areas for improvement.
Structure Your Review
Summarize the study, evaluate methods and results, and provide specific recommendations for improvement.
Methodological Checks
Confirm controls, statistical analyses, and resistance testing standards are appropriate and clearly described.
Clinical Relevance
Assess how findings translate to patient care, stewardship programs, or public health decision making.
Timely Responses
If you need an extension, inform the editor early to keep the review process on schedule.
Report Structure
Begin with a brief summary, then address strengths, limitations, and specific recommendations for improvement.
Statistics Review
Verify that statistical methods are appropriate and that conclusions match the data presented.
Data Availability
Check that data and code statements are included and consistent with the results described.
Tone and Respect
Reviews should be professional and constructive, supporting authors while maintaining critical evaluation.
Key Questions
Assess whether the study answers a clear question and whether conclusions match the evidence presented.
Ethical Checks
Verify that consent, approvals, and data handling meet ethical standards for clinical or surveillance work.
Evidence Strength
Comment on whether evidence supports conclusions and suggest clarifications when needed.
Clinical Implications
Highlight how results may affect treatment decisions or stewardship strategies.
Evidence Balance
Distinguish between major concerns and minor edits to help editors reach clear decisions.
Recommendation Clarity
State whether the manuscript is suitable for publication with revisions or should be declined.
Scope Fit
Note if the manuscript does not align with IJANR antibiotic research priorities.
Reproducibility
Assess whether methods are described clearly enough for replication.
High quality peer review ensures antibiotic research is accurate, reproducible, and clinically valuable.
Interested in Reviewing?
Register as a reviewer or contact [email protected] with questions about expectations and timelines. We are happy to help new reviewers.
