For Editors
What the journal asks of the editors who handle its manuscripts, and the subject judgments that decide most clinical microbiology papers.
Screening
- Scope. Does the microbiological work carry the argument? Studies of infection in which the microbiology is an input rather than the subject belong elsewhere, however sound.The three-question test is on the aims and scope page.
- Article type. Is the manuscript presented as a type the journal accepts, and does its content match that type? A case report must carry microbiological substance, not only an infection.
- Completeness. Ethics approval, consent, funding, competing interests, data availability and the applicable reporting checklist. A manuscript missing declarations is returned for them rather than declined.
- Obvious barriers. Undisclosed overlap with published work, absent method detail, or conclusions that no study of that design could support.
Choosing reviewers
- Match the reviewer to the method, not only the organism. A susceptibility-testing manuscript needs someone who runs the method; a genomics manuscript needs someone who runs the pipeline.
- For a study that spans areas, use reviewers who between them cover both — a clinical microbiologist and a bioinformatician, for instance.
- Avoid reviewers at the authors' institution, recent collaborators, and anyone the authors have asked to exclude without giving a reason you find sound.
- Where a study comes from a setting with particular constraints, a reviewer who works in a comparable setting will judge feasibility better than one who does not.
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Competing interests and confidentiality
- Declare and stand aside
- An editor who holds a financial or non-financial interest in a manuscript — including recent collaboration or institutional overlap — declares it and hands the manuscript to another editor.
- Editor-authored manuscripts
- An editor does not handle their own submission. It is assigned to an editor who is not its author and who holds no interest in it, and reviewed to the same standard as any other.
- Confidentiality
- A manuscript under consideration is not shared, cited or discussed outside the handling process, and its content is not used before publication.
- AI
- 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.The same confidentiality requirement applies to editors.
What to weigh
Diagnostic studies. Is there a reference standard capable of settling the question, and were index and reference tests read independently? Are predictive values reported with the prevalence they were measured at? Were indeterminate results accounted for?
Susceptibility and resistance. Is the testing method named, with the breakpoint set and its version? Are quality-control strains and results given? Is a mechanism claimed on molecular evidence or only inferred from phenotype? Does a local resistance rate stay inside the isolate collection it came from?
Molecular diagnostics. Are the controls stated rather than implied — including no-template and extraction controls? Is the limit of detection given in a matrix and units? Was the assay verified in the specimen type of use?
Genomics. Coverage, pipeline versions, reference database and its version. Does the phylogeny support the transmission claim being made, or only a relationship? Where genotype and phenotype disagree, is that reported?
Case reports. Is there something a laboratory would want to know — an organism that was hard to recover, identify or interpret? Consent must be documented and the patient must not be identifiable.
Reach of conclusions. A microbiological result describes what was found in a specimen by a stated method. It does not by itself establish a treatment decision or a patient outcome. Ask authors to bring conclusions back inside the evidence.
Decisions
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Reviewers advise; the editor decides. Where reviewers disagree, read the manuscript and the reviews rather than counting votes, and say in the decision letter which points are decisive.
The article processing charge, membership of any kind, a request for a fee arrangement, the author's institution, funding or country, and any prior relationship with the journal. Charges are invoiced only after acceptance and are handled by the billing office.
Integrity and misconduct
- Suspected misconduct
- Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation and undisclosed duplicate submission are referred to the editorial office and handled under COPE guidance, with the authors given the opportunity to respond.
- Corrections and retractions
- An error that does not undermine the conclusions is corrected; work that cannot stand is retracted, with a notice that remains attached to the record.
- Appeals
- An appeal is considered by an editor who did not take the original decision.
- Reviewer conduct
- A review that is abusive, that appears to be an attempt to delay a competitor, or that shows the manuscript has been shared, is reported to the editorial office.
Related pages
- Editorial Policies
- For Reviewers
- Aims and Scope
- Editorial Board
- Instructions for Authors
- Special Issues
International Journal of Clinical Microbiology (IJCM) · ISSN 2690-4721 · published open access by Open Access Pub under CC BY 4.0 · Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302. Editorial decisions are independent of any fee, service, membership or role.
Editorial service
Editors contribute subject expertise, fair decisions and research-integrity oversight. Editorial service does not provide an advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor’s own work. Any administrative or fee arrangement is handled separately by the publisher.
Apply for editorial service
Researchers with an active publication record, relevant subject expertise and experience evaluating research may express interest in editorial service. Expertise may include clinical laboratory methods, human or animal pathogens, microbial communities, infection biology and quantitative or qualitative methods relevant to laboratory practice.
Send a current CV, publication list, ORCID iD where available, areas of expertise and availability to [email protected]. Applications are assessed for expertise and the journal’s editorial needs; submitting an application is not an appointment.
Resources for editors
Editor login at ManuscriptZone. For account or workflow assistance, contact [email protected].
Use the Aims and Scope, Editorial Policies and Instructions for Authors together when assessing a manuscript. Match reporting guidance to study design, and assess developmental analytical claims separately from claims of clinical performance.
External resources: COPE, ICMJE recommendations and the EQUATOR Network.