Reviewer Policies

 

1. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (specific to reviewers)
2. Reviewers Guidelines

1. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers)

The International Journal of Virology and Parasitology follows strict guidelines to prevent bias in the peer review process. All reviewers are required to declare any potential conflict of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. A conflict of interest arises when a reviewer has a financial, professional, or personal relationship with the author(s) or the subject matter of the manuscript that could influence their impartiality. Such conflicts may include:

  • Financial Interests: A reviewer must disclose if they have any financial stake in a company, institution, or research project related to the manuscript's content (e.g., receiving funding, consulting fees, or holding shares).

  • Personal Relationships: Any personal relationships or collaborations with the authors, such as co-authorship on previous papers or ongoing collaborations, should be disclosed.

  • Professional Interests: If a reviewer is competing with the author(s) for research grants or if they have any rivalries or professional disputes with the authors, these must be disclosed.

If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they should recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript. The editorial team will then assign the review to another expert without any conflicts to ensure an unbiased evaluation.

By adhering to these guidelines, the International Journal of Virology and Parasitology ensures the integrity of the review process, maintaining high academic standards and ensuring that decisions are based solely on the quality and relevance of the research.

 

2. Reviewers' Guidelines

The International Journal of Virology and Parasitology follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure the impartiality and fairness of the evaluation process. Reviewers are expected to assess the quality, validity, and originality of submitted manuscripts and to provide constructive feedback to authors and editors. Below are the key guidelines for reviewers:

  • Scope and Expertise: Reviewers should only agree to evaluate manuscripts in areas where they have relevant expertise. If a reviewer is not familiar with the subject matter or lacks the necessary qualifications, they should decline the review invitation.

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. They should not share, discuss, or disclose its contents to others before publication. Any information or data from the manuscript should not be used for personal gain.

  • Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviewers are expected to provide unbiased and objective assessments. Feedback should be constructive, specific, and focused on the quality of the research, methodology, data analysis, and conclusions drawn. Personal criticism or subjective opinions about the authors are not appropriate.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers should adhere to deadlines for completing reviews. If they are unable to meet the timeline, they must inform the editorial team as soon as possible.

  • Recommendations: Reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following actions: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject. Justification for the recommendation should be based on the manuscript's quality and its alignment with the journal’s scope.