Journal of Immunization · ISSN 2577-137X · Open Access Pub
Editorial Policies
These policies set out how a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Immunization is handled: who decides, on what grounds, what authors and reviewers are asked to disclose, and how the published record is corrected when it needs to be.
They apply to every submission, and the editors are bound by them as much as authors are.
Deciding to publish
Who decides, and on what grounds
The first four policies govern the decision itself: who makes it, what it is based on, and how a manuscript reaches external review.
01
Editorial independence
The journal's editors hold sole responsibility for the decision to publish. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Decisions remain independent of fees, membership, editorial roles and paid services. Neither the publisher nor any commercial arrangement takes part in the assessment of a manuscript.
02
Scope and editorial assessment
Every submission is first assessed for scope: the work must carry a genuine immunization or vaccine question, and its findings must speak to that question. All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
03
Peer review
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Reviewers are selected for expertise appropriate to the manuscript's design and subject. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
04
Decision criteria
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. A decision letter states the grounds on which it rests, and revision requests identify what the editors need in order to assess the work further.
Conduct of the work
What authors are accountable for
These policies concern the research itself and the people responsible for it: who is an author, what must be disclosed, and the ethical and reporting standards the work has to meet.
05
Authorship and contribution
Authorship is limited to those who made a substantial contribution to the work and who approve the version submitted. Every listed author is accountable for the integrity of the whole. Changes to authorship after submission require the written agreement of all authors and the editors' approval.
06
Competing interests
Authors, reviewers and editors disclose financial and non-financial interests that a reasonable reader could regard as bearing on the work. Disclosure is a condition of assessment, not an obstacle to it. Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions, which are handled independently.
07
Research integrity and misconduct
Concerns about fabrication, falsification, image manipulation or misappropriation are investigated with the authors and, where appropriate, their institution. The journal follows the evidence before it reaches a conclusion, and records the outcome in the publication record.
08
Originality and plagiarism
Submitted work must be original and not under consideration elsewhere. Manuscripts are screened with Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate. A similarity report informs editorial assessment; it is read in context rather than applied as an automatic threshold.
09
Duplicate and redundant publication
A manuscript that substantially overlaps work already published or submitted elsewhere is not eligible. Secondary analyses, translations and prior presentation as a preprint or conference abstract are acceptable when disclosed at submission.
10
Ethical oversight and consent
Research involving human participants requires approval from the relevant ethics committee and informed consent, both reported in the manuscript. Research involving animals requires the approving body and the applicable welfare standards. Identifiable individuals require documented consent to publish.
11
Clinical-trial registration
Interventional clinical trials must be registered in an accepted public trial registry at or before the first participant provides consent for enrollment. The registry name, registration number, and registration date must be reported in the manuscript.
12
Data and materials
Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement. Where data, code or materials cannot be shared, the statement gives the reason and the conditions under which access may be arranged.
Confidentiality and review
What review requires of reviewers
Peer review depends on confidence that an unpublished manuscript stays confidential and is assessed by someone with no stake in the outcome.
13
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Editors and reviewers do not disclose its existence or content, and do not use unpublished material for their own purposes.
14
Reviewer conduct
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material. Reviewers decline an invitation where a competing interest would bear on their assessment.
15
Artificial intelligence in review
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.
The published record
Correcting and appealing
Publication is not the end of editorial responsibility. These policies cover how the record is corrected and how a decision can be challenged.
16
Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern
The published record is corrected rather than quietly amended. A correction records a change that does not affect the conclusions; a retraction withdraws a finding the evidence no longer supports; an expression of concern records an unresolved question while it is investigated. Each notice is linked to the article it concerns and remains part of the record.
17
Appeals and complaints
Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the editorial office with the specific grounds. An appeal is considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. Complaints about editorial process are answered by the editorial office.
Withdrawing a manuscript
- Authors should contact the editorial office promptly and wait for written confirmation before submitting the work elsewhere.
- Manuscripts withdrawn within 3 days of submission are not subject to a withdrawal charge.
- Manuscripts withdrawn more than 3 days after submission incur a withdrawal charge equal to 30% of the journal's APC.
- Authors must receive official withdrawal confirmation before submitting the manuscript to another journal.
The same terms, and the charge schedule they refer to, are published on the journal's Article Processing Charges page.
Related guidance
Where these policies are put into practice
The author, editor and reviewer guidance pages translate these policies into what each party is asked to do.
Instructions for Authors For Editors For Reviewers Submit Manuscript
Digital preservation
This journal’s content is committed to Portico, a not-for-profit digital-preservation archive run by ITHAKA (the organization behind JSTOR). As articles are deposited they enter Portico’s permanent archive, so the scholarly record stays available for the long term — even if a title one day ceases to publish. Read our preservation policy.