Reviewer Guidelines
Guidance for reviewers assessing immunization manuscripts.
Journal at a Glance
ISSN: 2577-137X
DOI Prefix: 10.14302/issn.2577-137X
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer reviewed open access journal
Scope Alignment
Immunization policy, vaccine development, safety monitoring, immunogenicity, delivery systems, and global vaccine equity. We prioritize evidence that strengthens public health outcomes and informs immunization programs.
Publishing Model
Open access, single blind peer review, and rapid publication after acceptance and production checks. Metadata validation and DOI registration are included.
JI reviewers evaluate methodological rigor, data transparency, and public health relevance in submissions. Reviews should be constructive, objective, and aligned with journal policies.
Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and disclose any potential conflicts before accepting an assignment.
- Population context and vaccination criteria
- Appropriate study design and statistical analysis
- Clarity of outcome definitions and endpoints
- Ethics approvals and participant privacy protections
- Relevance to immunization practice and policy
Scope Fit
Confirm alignment with immunization priorities.
Methods
Assess study design and reporting quality.
Results
Check clarity, consistency, and interpretation.
Transparency
Verify data availability and ethics statements.
Provide clear recommendations for revisions and highlight major methodological issues. Identify strengths alongside areas for improvement to support authors.
Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers should not share content or use unpublished data. If a conflict of interest exists, notify the editorial office promptly so assignments can be adjusted.
Avoid reviewing manuscripts from close collaborators or direct competitors.
Reviewers are encouraged to submit reports within the requested timeframe. If additional time is needed, inform the editorial office early to avoid delays.
Declining assignments promptly helps reassign reviews quickly.
Timely reviews support public health relevance.
Timeliness improves author experience.
Organize feedback around major and minor points to help authors prioritize revisions. Clear structure supports efficient editorial decisions and revisions.
Highlight any public health implications that require clarification.
Provide citations when recommending changes to methods or interpretation.
Concise summaries help editors weigh recommendations.
Focus on actionable guidance.
Avoid overly vague comments.
Keep feedback concise and specific.
Prioritize critical issues first.
Focus on reproducibility where possible.
Respect author effort while remaining candid.
JI is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in immunization research and program evaluation. We emphasize reproducible methods, clear reporting of vaccine outcomes, and ethical compliance across all article types.
The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].
We encourage continuous improvement in reporting practices and share updates that help the community maintain high standards in vaccine science, safety monitoring, and public health impact.
Interested in Reviewing?
Join our reviewer community to support immunization science.
