International Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Reviewer Guidelines
Essential guidance for peer reviewers ensuring comprehensive, fair, and constructive manuscript evaluation.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers should accept invitations only for manuscripts within their area of expertise where they can provide meaningful evaluation without conflicts of interest. Upon accepting, reviewers commit to completing thorough assessments within agreed timelines, typically two to three weeks from invitation acceptance. Reviewers unable to meet deadlines should notify editors promptly so alternative arrangements can be made.
Manuscript content must be treated as strictly confidential until publication. Reviewers may not share manuscripts with colleagues, use unpublished information from submissions for personal advantage, or discuss manuscript content publicly. Reviewer identities are confidential under IJSTD single-blind review process where authors do not know reviewer identities.
Scientific Assessment
Evaluate research questions, hypotheses, study design, methodology, statistical analysis, results presentation, and interpretation accuracy. Assess whether conclusions are supported by presented data and consider manuscript contribution to STI knowledge.
Methodological Rigor
Assess study design appropriateness, sample size adequacy, analytical methods, and potential sources of bias. Consider whether methods are described with sufficient detail to enable replication by qualified researchers.
Ethical Compliance
Verify appropriate ethics approval documentation, informed consent procedures, clinical trial registration, and compliance with established guidelines for human subjects or animal research.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, actionable suggestions helping authors improve their work. Criticism should be constructive and professional, focused on scientific content rather than personal attacks or stylistic preferences.
Conflict of Interest Management
Reviewers must decline invitations when conflicts of interest exist that could affect objective evaluation. Conflicts include personal relationships with authors, recent collaboration or competition, financial interests in research outcomes, institutional affiliations, and any circumstances creating bias or appearance of bias. When uncertain about potential conflicts, reviewers should consult the handling editor before proceeding.
Timeline Expectations: Complete reviews are typically expected within fourteen to twenty-one days from acceptance. Reviewers needing additional time should notify editors promptly so alternative arrangements can be made if necessary.
Professional Standards: Review comments should be professional, respectful, and focused on manuscript content. Avoid personal criticism of authors and provide balanced assessment acknowledging manuscript strengths alongside identified weaknesses.
Join Our Reviewer Pool
Contribute your STI expertise to advancing publication quality in sexual health research.
