International Journal of Infection Prevention · For reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
What the journal asks of a peer reviewer, from the moment an invitation arrives to the point a recommendation is sent, and what falls outside a reviewer’s remit.
Single-blind by default Confidential No advantage conferred
01 · The sequence
From invitation to recommendation
- 01 The invitation Accept when the subject and the design are both within your expertise, and say so plainly when only one of them is — an editor can pair you with a reviewer for the other. Declining promptly, and suggesting someone better placed, helps more than a delayed review.
- 02 Conflicts Decline where a shared institution, a recent collaboration, a competing project or a financial interest could affect your judgment, and tell the editor the reason. The journal's model is single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors; if you recognize the work regardless, say so.
- 03 Reading the manuscript Assess whether the question is clearly posed, whether the design can answer it, whether the methods are reported well enough to be repeated, whether the analysis suits the data, and whether the conclusions stay inside what the results support. For prevention work specifically, check that the setting is described, that denominators are given for rates and proportions, and that any comparison is stated rather than implied.
- 04 Ethics and integrity Check that ethics approval, consent and, for interventional trials, prospective registration are reported. Raise suspected duplication, image or data manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or authorship concerns with the editor rather than in comments to the authors, and leave the investigation to the editorial office.
- 05 Writing the report Separate what would change your assessment of the findings from what would improve the presentation, and number the points so an author can answer each one. Say what is sound as well as what is weak: an editor weighing a revision needs both. Address the work rather than the authors.
- 06 Recommendation and revision A recommendation advises the editor, who takes the decision. Reviewing a revision means checking whether the points you raised have been answered — by change or by argument — rather than opening new ground that could have been raised the first time.
02 · Two different questions
Eligibility and evidence are separate
Whether a manuscript belongs in this journal is settled by the approved scope. What its evidence can support is the reviewer’s question. Keeping the two apart is the single most useful thing a reviewer does.
The journal’s scope covers prevention-relevant work across laboratory, clinical, environmental, veterinary, behavioral, economic and health-systems research, in any country and any resource setting. A manuscript is eligible because of what it investigates, and a reviewer is asked to assess it on the terms of the discipline that produced it.
Assess a claim against the design that supports it: a description as a description, an association as an association, an effectiveness claim against evidence that an effect was measured. Where a conclusion outruns the data, the useful review response is to say which claim the evidence will carry, so the authors can align the two.
Reviewers are asked to apply the journal’s published criteria rather than additional tests of their own — a demand for novelty, for a mechanism, for a demonstrated clinical benefit, for a particular setting or country, or for citations to a reviewer’s own work. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
03 · Conduct
Confidentiality, files and artificial intelligence
- Confidentiality
- A manuscript under review is confidential. Discuss it only with the handling editor, and make no use of its unpublished content. Involving a colleague or a trainee in the review requires the editor’s agreement, and that person is named in the report.
- Files
- After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
- Artificial intelligence
- Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
- Recognition
- Reviewing is scholarly service to the field. Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, rigor, and clarity; reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer’s own submissions.
Support
Questions during a review
Questions about a manuscript, a conflict you are unsure of, or a concern you would rather raise separately go to the handling editor or to [email protected].