Infectious Disease Journal Logo

Peer Reviewers Guidelines

Peer Review Guidelines

This document provides guidance for external peer reviewers to deliver high-quality, fair, and timely assessments of manuscripts submitted to the Infectious Disease Policy Journal (IDPJ). It should be read alongside:

IDPJ welcomes a wide range of manuscript categories and invited opinion pieces. Word limits and structural expectations are summarised in the Author Submission Guidelines. 

Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts must not be shared, discussed, or used outside the review process.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Declare any personal, professional, or financial relationships that may influence judgment.
  • Inclusion and Equity: Identify and flag biased, exclusionary, or stigmatising language related to race, gender, disability, sexuality, socioeconomic status, or other protected characteristics.
  • AI Use Monitoring: Scrutinize AI-generated content (e.g., hallucinated facts, generic statements). Confirm that any AI use is appropriately disclosed and supervised by human authors, in line with IDPJ’s Ethical AI Statement.

Review Workflow

  1. Invitation
    • Accept/decline within 5 days. If declining, suggest alternate reviewers if possible.
  2. Pre-Review Screening
    • If the manuscript is clearly out-of-scope, methodologically irredeemable, or ethically concerning, notify the Editor before completing a full review.
  3. Structured Evaluation
    • Use the IDPJ reviewer system alongside submitting your comments and feedback on the manuscript.
  4. Recommendation Categories
    • Accept Submission / Minor Revision Required / Major Revision Required / Resubmit Elsewhere / Decline Submission 
  5. Timeline
    • Submit the review within 21 days of acceptance. Contact the Handling Editor to renegotiate if delays arise.
  6. Reviewer Dialogue
    • Anonymized reviewer comments may be shared in later rounds. Constructive reviewer-to-reviewer dialogue is encouraged when appropriate.

Detailed Evaluation Criteria

Criterion

Reviewer Prompt

1. Originality & Contribution

Does the article contribute new or underrepresented insights, methods, data, or frameworks to the field?

2. Importance to Readers

Does this article offer value to policymakers, practitioners, researchers, or affected communities?

3. Evidence-Based Soundness

Are claims supported by appropriate and relevant data, analysis, or citations? (This includes non-academic sources where appropriate.)

4. Research Question

Is the aim of the study clearly defined, justified, and adequately addressed?

5. Study Design, Structure, & Clarity

Is the article well-organized, readable, and coherent? Are key messages clearly stated?

6. Population/Data Sources & Setting

Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria, context, and participants adequately described?

7. Methods Transparency & Ethics

Are methods (incl. tools, interventions, and analyses) fully explained? Are ethical issues, including equity, data use, participant rights, and AI use, clearly addressed?

8. Results Reporting

Do findings/recommendations answer the research question? Are they internally consistent and well presented (tables, figures)?

9. Conclusions, Recommendations & Implications

Are conclusions supported by data and reasonably qualified by study limitations and context? Are the findings/action points practical, transferable, or generalisable within relevant contexts?

10. References

Are citations relevant, current, and complete? Are key references missing?

11. Abstract / Executive Summary/ Key Messages

Does the abstract/executive summary summarize aims, methods, findings, and recommendations/conclusions clearly and accurately?

12. Reporting Standards

Are applicable reporting checklists (e.g., CONSORT for RCTs, PRISMA for reviews, STROBE for observational studies, COREQ for qualitative research, or other relevant standards) followed? Protocols registered if appropriate?

Article-Type Specific Considerations

Type

Special Reviewer Focus

Research Articles
  • Is the research question clear and justified?
  • Are the methods appropriate (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed)?
  • Are results robust, transparent, and reproducible?

Review Articles
  • Does the review use a systematic, scoping, or narrative approach clearly?
  • Is the literature synthesis comprehensive and balanced?

Brief Reports
  • Are findings novel, early-stage, or exploratory?
  • Is brevity justified, and is the message focused and impactful?

Case Studies
  • Is the context well-described?
  • Are lessons learned transferable or policy-relevant?
  • Is the intervention, governance model, or outcome clearly reflected?
  • Are findings transferable to other settings, or do they offer insights into scalable policy interventions?

Policy Briefs
  • Is the evidence concisely presented for decision-makers?
  • Are policy options/recommendations clear and actionable?
  • Is the writing non-technical yet evidence-based?
  • Are findings transferable to other settings, or do they offer insights into scalable policy interventions?

Ethical and Integrity Checks

  • Authorship: Are authorship and contributions transparently declared?
  • Plagiarism: Flag any text that appears unoriginal or reused without citation.
  • Redundant Publication: Has this content been published elsewhere or presented before?
  • Human Subjects: Are IRB/REC approval and informed consent described?
  • AI Disclosure: Is any AI use in writing, analysis, or visuals clearly stated and overseen?
  • Data Sharing: Is a data availability statement satisfactory? Is repository access clear?

Providing Constructive Feedback

  • Use professional, respectful language. Avoid personal or dismissive phrasing.
  • Separate major (content, methods, ethics) from minor (grammar, formatting) issues.
  • Be specific: Refer to line numbers or sections.
  • Offer clear suggestions, e.g., “Please clarify the randomisation method used in Methods §2.3.”

Reviewer Recognition & Incentives

To acknowledge and reward the essential role of peer reviewers, IDPJ offers:

  • Public Acknowledgment (optional): Annual publication of contributing reviewers’ names (with consent).
  • ORCID Credit: Review contributions can be recognized via ORCID peer review section.
  • Waived Article Processing Charges:
    • 50% APC Waiver for reviewers who complete 3 full reviews within a 12-month period.
    • Waiver can be used by the reviewer or transferred to a co-author.
    • Applies to all peer-reviewed IDPJ article types.
    • Valid for 24 months after earning the waiver.

Relevant Resources

Contact

Thank you for your essential contribution to maintaining the integrity and impact of IDPJ. We welcome feedback from our reviewers. If you have any comments you want to make, either on a manuscript you have reviewed and our decision on it or on our review process in general, please contact the editorial team at:

✉ journal@idpj.org