At the SCICONX Journal of Immunity and Infectious Diseases (JIID), peer review is the foundation of our commitment to scientific integrity, quality, and transparency. Every manuscript submitted undergoes a rigorous evaluation process designed to ensure that published articles meet the highest standards of originality, ethical soundness, and scholarly relevance.

Our peer review policy follows the principles of fairness, confidentiality, and constructive feedback, ensuring that authors receive meaningful guidance while reviewers and editors maintain objectivity.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

• Submission Check – Each manuscript is first screened by the editorial office for compliance with formatting guidelines, ethical declarations, and plagiarism thresholds.
• Scope and Relevance – The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor evaluates whether the submission fits the aims and scope of JIID.
• Immediate Decisions – Manuscripts that are clearly out of scope, ethically problematic, or of insufficient quality may be declined at this stage to save author’s valuable time.

2. Reviewer Assignment

• Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
• The review process at JIID is double-blind:
  • Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
• In rare cases, when expertise is highly specialized, a single-reviewer model may be applied, but this is supplemented with additional editorial evaluation.

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to provide a structured report addressing:

• Scientific quality – originality, rigor, validity of methods, and reliability of data.
• Clarity – organization, coherence, and accuracy of writing.
• Significance – contribution to the fields of immunity, infectious diseases, or global health.
• Ethical compliance – adherence to standards in human, animal, and laboratory research.
• Suggestions – specific and constructive recommendations to improve the manuscript.

Each review concludes with a recommendation:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

4. Editorial Decision

• The handling editor considers reviewer feedback, the manuscript’s relevance, and overall quality.
• If reviewers’ opinions diverge significantly, the editor may:
  • Seek an additional expert opinion.
  • Weigh the arguments and reach a balanced decision.
• The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, ensuring consistency and fairness.

5. Revision Process

• Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a point-by-point response document, addressing each reviewer’s comment.
• Revised manuscripts are reassessed either by the original reviewers or directly by the editor, depending on the extent of revision.
• Multiple rounds of revision may occur to ensure scientific clarity and rigor.

6. Final Acceptance and Proofs

• Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and proof preparation.
• Authors receive page proofs for final corrections before online publication.
• At this stage, only minor adjustments are permitted.

7. Ethical Oversight

• JIID strictly enforces policies on plagiarism, duplicate submissions, image manipulation, and data fabrication.
• Suspected misconduct is investigated following COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
• Editors may request raw data, trial registration numbers, or additional documentation to verify authenticity.

8. Transparency and Timelines

• Typical peer review timelines range from 3 to 5 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.
• Authors are kept informed at every stage of the process through the submission system.
• Reviewers’ contributions remain confidential but are highly valued and acknowledged by the journal.

9. Commitment to Constructive Peer Review

Unlike purely judgmental systems, JIID emphasizes peer review as a collaborative dialogue:

• Reviewers are encouraged to highlight strengths in addition to areas of improvement.
• Editors ensure that feedback is respectful, balanced, and free from bias.
• Authors are guided not only toward acceptance or rejection but also toward enhancing the scientific quality of their work.

10. Appeals and Complaints

• Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe an error or bias influenced the outcome.
• Appeals must be evidence-based and directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may seek additional expert input.
• Complaints about peer review conduct or editorial handling are investigated transparently, with corrective measures applied if necessary.

✅ By following this structured peer review process, JIID ensures that every published article contributes meaningfully to the advancement of immunology, infectious diseases, and global health resilience.