Reviewer guidelines

01 · The invitation

Accepting or declining

• Expertise. You do not need to cover every aspect of a manuscript. Review what you can assess and say plainly which parts fall outside your competence, so the editor can seek that assessment elsewhere.
• Competing interests. Decline where you have a personal relationship with an author, a recent collaboration, competing work in progress, a financial interest in the outcome, or a shared institution. Where you are uncertain, describe the situation to the handling editor and let them decide.
• Time. Agree a date at the point of acceptance, and tell the editor as soon as you know it will slip so the manuscript can be reassigned.
• Delegation. Do not pass a manuscript to a colleague or a trainee without the editor's agreement. Where a co-review is agreed, name the co-reviewer so their contribution is on the record.

02 · The assessment

What to assess

The question

Whether the study addresses a question that is open, and whether the design can answer it.

Methods

Whether the design, setting, recruitment, exposures, outcome definitions and procedures are described in enough detail for a qualified investigator to repeat the work, and whether the sources of bias are identified and handled.

Statistics

Whether the analysis matches the design, whether the sample size supports the claims, how missing data were handled, and whether effect sizes and confidence intervals are reported rather than threshold statements.

Results

Whether the numbers in the text, tables and figures agree, whether participant flow is accounted for, and whether every result presented is one the methods can produce.

Interpretation

Whether the conclusions follow from the data, whether limitations are stated and their effect acknowledged, and whether the discussion engages the studies that disagree.

Originality and relevance

What the work adds to the existing evidence on sexually transmitted infection, and whether it falls within the journal's scope.

Reporting quality

Whether the manuscript follows the guideline for its design — CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, STARD or ARRIVE — and whether the checklist matches the text.

Ethics

Whether the ethics statement documents approval or an applicable exemption or waiver, consent requirements are addressed, and trial registration and data availability are reported where applicable.

03 · This field

What an STI manuscript needs to be read for

04 · The review

Writing the review

• Open with what the study is and what it adds, in two or three sentences. It shows the authors and the editor what you took the work to be claiming.
• Separate the essential from the optional. Number the points that must be addressed for the findings to hold, then list the improvements you would suggest. An undifferentiated list of forty comments tells the editor nothing about severity.
• Locate every point. Give the page, line or table so the authors can find it.
• Say what would resolve it. "The analysis does not account for X" is a comment; "adjusting for X, or explaining why it cannot be, would resolve this" is a review.
• Review the work, not the authors. Comments are professional and specific; the authors read them.
• Acknowledge the strengths. An editor weighing conflicting recommendations needs to know what you thought was sound as well as what was not.
• Use the confidential comments to the editor for anything the authors should not see: a suspicion of misconduct, a competing interest you discovered while reading, or the limits of your own assessment.

05 · Confidentiality and conduct

Confidentiality, AI use and files

Confidentiality

A manuscript under review is confidential. Publication does not authorize disclosure of unpublished drafts, confidential reviews, correspondence or participant information. Do not share it, discuss its content, or use unpublished information from it in your own work or to inform a decision of your own.

Double-blind manuscripts

For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.

AI use

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.

Files

After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.

Suspected misconduct

Report suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication or image manipulation to the handling editor in the confidential comments, with the evidence. Do not contact the authors.

Independence

Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer's own submissions, and no fee, service, membership or role affects any editorial decision.

06 · Joining

Reviewing for IJSTD

07 · Routes

Where to go next

• Editorial policiesReview, ethics, integrity, corrections and retractions.
• Editors guidelinesWhat a handling editor does with a manuscript.
• Instructions for authorsWhat authors are asked to supply, and in what form.
• Aims and scopeEvery research domain with a worked example, and the boundary.
• Editorial boardWho provides scholarly oversight, and their recorded expertise.
• Current issueThe most recent research the journal has published.