Information for Reviewers
Consort Statement—Checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial
STROBE Statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies
1. An unpublished manuscript is a confidential document and should be safeguarded against any misuse. Do not cite or reference its content before publication, and refrain from using its information to further your own research or share it in discussions with colleagues.
2. Maintain a positive and unbiased approach while reviewing the manuscript, focusing on fostering clear and accurate scientific communication. If you feel unable to evaluate an article impartially, promptly inform the editor.
3. Reviews must be completed by the deadline specified on the review form. If you are unable to meet this deadline, promptly inform the editor.
4. Consider the following aspects while reviewing the manuscript: -
a) Significance of research question or subject studied.
b) Originality of work (Opinion regarding the genuine work, availability of resources)
c) Appropriateness of approach or experimental design.
d) Adequacy of experimental techniques.
e) Soundness of conclusions and interpretation.
f) Relevance of discussion
g) Adherence to the IDJP authors guidelines.
h) Adequacy of title and abstract.
i) Appropriateness of figures and tables.
j) Adherence to correct nomenclature (generic names of the drugs, enzymes, organisms, S.I. units for measurement should be used).
k) Appropriate literature citations.
5. Any corrections, if required, may be marked on the copy of the article provided.
6. Please identify any redundant illustrations and data that appear both in tabular (or graphic) form and in detail within the text, as they unnecessarily consume space and the reader's time.
7. You are not required to comment on whether the paper is acceptable or not. Please provide feedback in a constructive and objective manner, refraining from any disrespectful or offensive language.
8. Any confidential comments intended for the editor should be submitted separately. Additionally, it may be helpful to differentiate between revisions that are essential and those that are simply recommended.
9. Your well-supported critiques, arguments, and suggestions regarding the paper will be valuable to both the editor and the author. Avoid making absolute or dismissive claims, especially about the originality of the work. Instead, ensure your comments are thoroughly justified with evidence.
10. The editor greatly appreciates the reviewers' recommendations. However, as editorial decisions are typically informed by multiple evaluations, reviewers should not assume that every suggestion will be followed
11. Categories of recommendation: accept, reject, modify, or convert to some other form.
12. The Infectious Diseases Journal of Pakistan (Infect Dis J Pak) follows a double-blind peer-review process. Once plagiarism screening is completed, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript. The paper is then sent to a statistician and two subject experts for review. Reviewers are initially given four weeks to evaluate the submission. If the review is not completed within this period, an additional two-week extension may be granted.
How long does the review process take?
The duration of the initial review round depends on how quickly the reviewers respond. Once the reviewers provide their feedback, the Editor’s decision, along with their recommendations—often including direct quotes from the reviewers—is sent to the author. The revised manuscript then undergoes additional rounds of review before a final decision is made, incorporating any necessary amendments.
Editor’s Decision is final
Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
