The SCICONX Journal of Vaccine and Immunology (JVI) is committed to maintaining a transparent, impartial, and rigorous peer review process that ensures the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of all published articles. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and plays a critical role in validating research findings, improving manuscript quality, and supporting informed editorial decisions.

All manuscripts submitted to JVI are evaluated through a structured review process designed to uphold academic standards while providing authors with constructive and timely feedback.

Peer Review Model

JVI follows a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This approach is intended to minimize bias and ensure that editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific merit and relevance of the work.

In special circumstances, alternative review models may be applied at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, with transparency and fairness maintained at all times.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial office to assess:

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Completeness of required documentation
• Basic methodological and ethical standards

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors without external peer review.

Assignment to Handling Editor

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are assigned to a Handling Editor with subject-matter expertise. The Handling Editor is responsible for overseeing the peer review process, including reviewer selection, evaluation of reviewer reports, and formulation of editorial recommendations.

Reviewer Selection

The Handling Editor invites independent reviewers based on:

• Relevant academic or clinical expertise
• Research experience in the manuscript’s subject area
• Absence of conflicts of interest

Typically, at least two qualified reviewers are invited to evaluate each manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based assessments within the agreed timeframe.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and significance of the research
• Scientific and methodological rigor
• Ethical compliance and transparency
• Clarity of presentation and organization
• Validity of data analysis and interpretation
• Relevance to vaccine science and immunology

Reviewers provide detailed comments for authors and confidential recommendations to the Editor.

Editorial Decision-Making

Based on reviewer reports and independent editorial evaluation, the Handling Editor may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated senior editor. Authors are informed of decisions along with anonymized reviewer comments.

Revision and Re-Review

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to:

• Address all reviewer comments systematically
• Provide a point-by-point response to reviewers
• Clearly indicate revisions made in the manuscript

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly in cases of major revision.

Ethical Oversight During Review

The editorial team monitors submissions for potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, redundant publication, and ethical approval issues. Suspected misconduct is handled confidentially and in accordance with established ethical guidelines.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

All aspects of the peer review process are treated as confidential. Manuscripts, reviewer identities, and editorial communications are not disclosed outside the review process. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from using unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

AI-assisted tools may be used by editors to support administrative checks; however:

• Editorial decisions rely on human judgment
• Confidential manuscript content is protected
• AI tools do not replace expert peer review

Timelines and Transparency

The SCICONX Journal of Vaccine and Immunology strives to provide timely editorial decisions while maintaining review quality. Authors are kept informed of manuscript status throughout the review process.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a reasoned request to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed carefully and objectively by senior editors not involved in the original decision.

Commitment to Excellence

Through a robust and ethical peer review process, the SCICONX Journal of Vaccine and Immunology aims to support high-quality research dissemination, foster scientific dialogue, and contribute meaningfully to advances in vaccinology and immunological sciences.