Editorial Review Guidelines

Editorial Review Guidelines

This document supports Infectious Disease Policy Journal (IDPJ) editors and internal reviewers in delivering high-quality, fair and timely evaluations of manuscripts that undergo editorial review only, without external peer review. These include Commentaries & Perspectives, Comments, Editorials and Position Papers. It should be read alongside:

• IDPJ Author Submission Guidelines
• IDPJ Ethical Authorship Guidelines

These guidelines apply to editorially reviewed submissions. They do not typically follow a structured methodology or require formal reporting checklists. IDPJ welcomes a wide range of manuscript categories and invited opinion pieces. Word limits and structural expectations are summarised in the Author Submission Guidelines. 

Editorial Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts must not be shared, discussed, or used outside the review process.
• Conflicts of Interest: Declare any personal, professional, or financial relationships that may influence judgment.
• Inclusion and Equity: Identify and flag biased, exclusionary, or stigmatising language related to race, gender, disability, sexuality, socioeconomic status, or other protected characteristics.
• AI Use Monitoring: Scrutinize AI-generated content (e.g., hallucinated facts, generic statements). Confirm that any AI use is appropriately disclosed and supervised by human authors, in line with IDPJ’s Ethical AI Statement.

Article Types Reviewed

Article Type	Word Limit	Description
Commentaries & Perspectives	Up to 1,000	Reflections on policy trends, ethical dilemmas, lived experience, or emerging global health issues. Encourages diverse voices.
Comments	Up to 1,000	Direct responses to previously published IDPJ articles. Designed to spark critical engagement. APCs are waived for accepted submissions.
Editorials	Up to 3,000	Usually commissioned. Provides thought leadership, introduces special issues, or responds to key global events.
Position Papers	Up to 3,000	Evidence-informed policy statements developed by expert groups. Must be grounded in rationale and clearly state authorship or institutional backing.
Conference Abstracts	Up to 500	Concise summaries of research, policy initiatives, or implementation experiences presented at Infectious Disease Alliance (IDA)–affiliated events. Reviewed for clarity, relevance, and alignment with IDPJ’s scope and the event objectives prior to inclusion in special collections or supplementary issues.

Note: Length limits may be waived by the Editor in justified cases

Editorial Review Workflow

The Editorial team must remain aware of the standard timeline. Reviews should be submitted within 14 days of assignment unless otherwise agreed with the Editor.

• Assignment: 
• Editorially reviewed submissions are usually evaluated by members of the Editorial Board or invited internal reviewers.

• Evaluation Form: 

• Use the IDPJ reviewer system to record your assessment.

• Designate Category

• Choose one of four: Accept Submission / Minor Revision Required / Major Revision Required / Resubmit Elsewhere / Decline Submission 

• Dialogue and Revisions: 

• Feedback will be shared with authors. Reviewers may be asked to comment on revised versions.

Detailed Evaluation Criteria

Criterion	Reviewer Prompt
1. Clarity of Argument/Message	Is the main message clearly articulated? Is the argument coherent, logical, and easy to follow?
2. Importance to Readers	Does the piece contribute to current infectious disease policy discourse? Is it timely and meaningful for policymakers, practitioners, or researchers?
3. Originality	Does the article offer a new idea, perspective, or framing that is not already well covered in the literature?
4. Evidence or Rationale	Where appropriate, are references, examples, or policy implications used to support the key points (especially important in Position Papers)?
5. Constructive Tone	Is the piece respectful and professional, especially if responding critically to other work (e.g., Comments)?
6. Policy or Advocacy Value	Does the submission offer practical value or influence decision-making (especially for Commentaries and Position Papers)?
7. Writing Style & Verbosity	Is the writing clear, concise, and accessible to a broad audience? Is it free of jargon or ambiguous language?
8. Disclosure & Transparency	Are author affiliations, potential conflicts of interest, and relevant institutional positions disclosed (especially in Position Papers and Editorials)?
9. Conclusions, Recommendations & Implications	Are conclusions supported by data and reasonably qualified by study limitations and context? Are the findings/action points practical, transferable, or generalisable within relevant contexts?
10. References	Are citations relevant, current, and complete? Are key references missing?
11. Abstract / Summary Quality	Does the abstract/summary concisely and accurately overview the article and its key takeaways?

Providing Constructive Feedback

• Use professional, respectful language. Avoid personal or dismissive phrasing.
• Separate major (content, methods, ethics) from minor (grammar, formatting) issues.
• Be specific: Refer to line numbers or sections.
• Offer clear suggestions, e.g., ‘The introduction could benefit from grounding the argument in a recent WHO policy document’

Relevant Resources

• COPE Guidelines on Editorial Responsibility
• WHO Policy Brief Toolkit (for Position Paper authors)

Contact

For questions about editorial review or to provide feedback on this process, please contact us at:

✉ journal@idpj.org