Journal of Immunization

Submit Manuscript

Journal of Immunization · ISSN 2577-137X · Open Access Pub

For Reviewers

Peer review is the journal's principal instrument for judging whether a finding is supported. This page sets out what a review is expected to do, how the journal handles the manuscript you are sent, and what is asked of you in return.

On this page

Accepting an invitation Writing the review Confidentiality and conduct

Accepting an invitation

Before you agree

Two questions settle whether you should take a manuscript: can you judge it, and can you judge it impartially.

Expertise
Accept where you can assess the manuscript's subject and its method. Where your expertise covers only part of it, say so on accepting: a review that is explicit about its own scope is more useful to an editor than one that is not.
Competing interests
Decline where a financial or non-financial interest would bear on your assessment, including recent collaboration, shared funding or institutional connection with the authors.
Review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Capacity
Accept only where you can complete the review within the period agreed with the editor. If circumstances change, tell the editorial office promptly so the manuscript is not delayed.

Writing the review

What a useful review contains

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, rigor and clarity. The editors make the decision; the review gives them the grounds.

01

Whether the question is answerable by the design

State whether the study design, sample and setting can support the question asked, and where they cannot.

02

Whether the methods are reported sufficiently

Identify what a reader would need in order to evaluate or repeat the work, and what is missing.

03

Whether the conclusions are proportionate

Immunization research frequently reports associations observed in one population, setting and period. Say where a conclusion reaches beyond what the evidence presented supports.

04

Whether the reporting is complete

Note absent ethical approval, consent, trial registration, funding or data statements, and any figure or table that cannot be interpreted as presented.

05

A clear recommendation, separately argued

Give the editor a recommendation and the reasons for it. Distinguish what would have to change for the work to be publishable from what you would merely prefer.

Confidentiality and conduct

What the journal asks of you

A manuscript sent for review is unpublished work entrusted to you.

Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not disclose its existence or content, and do not use unpublished material for your own purposes.
Manuscript 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.
Suspected misconduct
Where you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation or undisclosed interests, raise it with the editor rather than with the authors, and give the evidence you are relying on.
Independence
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer's own submissions.

Related pages

Standards behind the review

The editorial policies set the standard a review is applied against, and the author instructions show what authors were asked to provide.

Editorial Policies Instructions for Authors For Editors Aims and Scope

Menu

Quick Links

For Authors

For Editors & Reviewers

Policies & Info

Connect

Follow Us

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn