International Journal of Inflammation Research
For Reviewers
A review is most useful when it separates what would change the conclusions from what would improve the presentation. This page sets out what to assess, how to report it, and what is required of you while the manuscript is in your hands.
Before you accept
Two checks, then the work
Expertise
Accept only where the manuscript sits within your own area, and say which part of it you are able to judge if your expertise covers some sections and not others.
Independence
Decline where you have a competing interest in the work, the authors or their institutions, or where recent collaboration would make an independent judgment difficult. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
The review
What to assess, and how to report it
Assess
- Whether the design can answer the question the manuscript asks
- Whether the methods are reported precisely enough to be repeated
- Whether the analysis suits the data, and whether replication and controls support the claims
- Whether the conclusions stay within what the evidence carries
- Whether ethics approval, consent and competing interests are properly declared
Report
Separate the points that bear on the validity of the work from those that bear on its presentation, and number them so the authors can answer each one. Anchor every substantive point to the section, figure or analysis it concerns.
Write the report you would want to receive: direct about the problems, specific about what would resolve them, and free of remarks about the authors rather than the work.
Leave to the editor
The recommendation is advice; the decision is the editor's. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Where you suspect duplication, undisclosed conflict or a data-integrity problem, say so to the editor rather than to the authors, and give the evidence you are relying on.
After you submit
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Standing requirements
Confidentiality and assistance
Confidentiality
A manuscript sent for review is confidential. Do not discuss it outside the review, do not show it to a colleague without the editor's agreement, and do not use its content before publication.
AI assistance
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.
Independence
Editorial decisions remain independent of fees, memberships, roles and paid services. Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer's own submissions.
Where to go next
Pages
- Editorial PoliciesThe policies governing review, ethics and publication.
- Aims & ScopeWhat the journal considers, in detail.
- For EditorsWhat handling editors are expected to do.
Also useful
- Instructions for AuthorsManuscript preparation and submission requirements.
- Editorial BoardThe editors responsible for review.
- About the JournalWhat the journal is, who it serves, and how it is run.