Reviewer Policies
Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers)
In the International Journal of Bacteriology and Mycology, the integrity of the peer review process is paramount to maintaining the quality, trustworthiness, and scientific rigor of the journal. To ensure the impartiality and transparency of the peer review process, the journal has established clear guidelines related to Conflict of Interest (COI) and financial disclosures for reviewers.
Conflict of Interest Policy for Reviewers
Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their judgment during the review process. A conflict of interest arises when a reviewer has a personal, professional, or financial interest that could affect, or be perceived to affect, their objectivity. Some common examples of conflicts of interest include:
- Personal relationships with the authors, such as familial ties or close friendships.
- Professional relationships, such as direct collaboration or co-authorship within the last 5 years.
- Financial interests, including funding, equity, or consulting arrangements with organizations or companies that may benefit from the publication of the paper.
- Competing interests, such as having a stake in the outcomes or conclusions of the study under review.
Reviewers must complete a conflict-of-interest declaration when agreeing to review a manuscript. If they disclose any potential conflicts, the editorial team will assess whether they are suitable to handle the review. If there is any doubt about the objectivity of the reviewer, the editor will assign the manuscript to a different reviewer. This ensures that the review process remains unbiased and that decisions are based solely on the quality and scientific merit of the submission.
Financial Disclosures
Reviewers are also required to disclose any financial relationships that could affect their review of the manuscript. This includes:
- Any funding received from organizations with a vested interest in the outcome of the research.
- Any stock ownership or consulting fees related to industries relevant to the research topic.
Transparency in financial disclosures ensures that reviewers' decisions are free from commercial or financial influences that could distort the scientific judgment or lead to biased assessments.
By adhering to strict conflict-of-interest and financial disclosure policies, the International Journal of Bacteriology and Mycology ensures that the peer review process is fair, objective, and credible.
Reviewers Guidelines
The International Journal of Bacteriology and Mycology relies heavily on its peer review process to maintain the quality of the research it publishes. Reviewers play a crucial role in this process by evaluating submitted manuscripts for their scientific accuracy, novelty, significance, and overall quality. To help ensure a consistent and constructive review process, the journal has developed a detailed set of Reviewers Guidelines, which reviewers are expected to follow when evaluating a manuscript.
General Guidelines
- Expertise: Reviewers should only accept assignments for manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise. If the reviewer feels unqualified to assess the manuscript, they are encouraged to decline the invitation to review.
- Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript to others without the express consent of the editorial team. This confidentiality extends even after the review process is complete.
- Constructive Criticism: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback to the authors. This includes pointing out weaknesses in the study, such as flaws in methodology, data analysis, or interpretation of results, as well as suggesting improvements or additional experiments that might strengthen the research.
- Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the time frame provided by the journal. Delays in the review process can impact the overall publication schedule, so timely feedback is essential. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.
Specific Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several key criteria:
- Originality and Relevance: Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents new, original research or offers valuable insights into existing knowledge. The work should contribute meaningfully to the field of bacteriology and mycology.
- Scientific Quality: Reviewers need to evaluate the scientific rigor of the study. This includes reviewing the methodology for appropriateness, the analysis for accuracy, and the interpretation of results for validity.
- Clarity and Structure: Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript is well-organized and clearly written. They should assess whether the manuscript is easy to follow, free of jargon, and properly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.
- Statistical Analysis: Reviewers should verify that the statistical methods are appropriate for the research question and sample size. They should also check whether the statistical results are properly reported and interpreted.
- Ethical Standards: Reviewers should ensure that the research complies with ethical standards, particularly regarding human and animal studies. The manuscript should include a statement of ethical approval and informed consent if applicable.
- References and Citations: Reviewers should check the adequacy and appropriateness of the references cited in the manuscript. The references should reflect the most current research in the field, and all sources should be properly cited.
Decision Making
Based on their evaluation, reviewers will recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The manuscript meets all required criteria and is ready for publication with minimal or no revisions.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript is generally acceptable, but some minor revisions are needed (e.g., improving clarity, fixing small errors, or addressing minor methodological concerns).
- Major Revisions: Significant revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication (e.g., major issues with methodology, data interpretation, or missing experiments).
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is unsuitable for publication due to fundamental issues with its scientific validity or originality.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed comments for both the authors and the editors. These comments should be constructive, clear, and specific to help the authors improve their work.
Ethical Conduct and Integrity
Reviewers must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct during the peer review process. They should avoid personal biases or conflicts of interest and ensure that their reviews are based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript. Additionally, reviewers must not use any information from the manuscript for personal or professional gain. If a reviewer suspects any unethical behavior, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, they should report it to the journal’s editorial office.
