For Reviewers

Before you accept

• Expertise. Accept where you can judge the method, not only the organism. Decline the parts you cannot assess and say which those are — a partial review from the right expert is more use than a complete one from the wrong.
• Competing interests. Decline where you have collaborated recently with the authors, share an institution, or have a financial or competitive interest. Tell the editor why.
• Time. Decline promptly if you cannot review within the agreed period. A fast decline is a service; a slow one is not.
• Confidentiality. The manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, cite it, or use its content before publication. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.

What every review covers

Diagnostic accuracy studies

• Is the reference standard capable of settling the question? If there is none, is the limitation acknowledged rather than hidden?
• Were index and reference tests read independently and blind?
• How were specimens selected? A consecutive series and a convenience set support different claims.
• Are predictive values tied to the prevalence measured, rather than presented as properties of the test?
• Were indeterminate and failed results reported and accounted for, not quietly excluded?
• Does the setting let a reader judge transferability?

Susceptibility and resistance

• Is the method named, with instrument, panel or disc content?
• Is the breakpoint set and version stated? Rates calculated under different editions are not comparable.
• Are QC strains and results reported for the study period?
• Are resistance definitions given, with their source, for terms such as multidrug-resistant?
• Is a mechanism claimed on molecular evidence, or inferred from phenotype alone?
• Does the isolate collection support the prevalence claimed — consecutive, selected, screening or referral, and over what period?

Molecular diagnostics

• Are all controls present: positive, negative, internal amplification, extraction and no-template?
• Is contamination control described — workflow separation and monitoring?
• Is the limit of detection given with matrix and units, and was cross-reactivity tested against related organisms?
• Was the assay verified in the specimen type and setting of use, against a named comparator?
• Are Ct values treated as quantitative only where the assay was validated as quantitative?

Microbial genomics

• Are coverage and quality thresholds reported, and are they adequate for the claim?
• Are tools and versions given, with the reference genome or database and its version?
• Does the phylogeny support the transmission or outbreak claim, or only relatedness? Are appropriate outgroups and context isolates included?
• Where resistance is predicted from sequence, is it compared with phenotype, and are disagreements reported?
• Are accession numbers given so the analysis could be repeated?

Microbiome studies

• Are sample handling and storage described, and is low-biomass contamination addressed with negative extraction and reagent controls?
• Is the region, primer set and pipeline stated, with the reference database and version?
• Is multiple testing corrected for, and are effect sizes given rather than p-values alone?
• Is association presented as association, not causation, and is the clinical question clear? A descriptive community survey without one is outside the journal's scope.

Machine learning studies

• Is there leakage between training and test sets — the same patient, isolate or plate in both? Grouping must be by subject, not by image or read.
• Is the reference standard defined, and is it independent of the model's inputs?
• Is the comparator current practice or an existing method, rather than an untuned baseline?
• Is there external validation on another site or period where the claim is general?
• Are performance intervals and calibration given?
• Could the work be reproduced — code, model, or a clear statement of why not?
• Does it answer a clinical microbiological question, or use microbial data as a convenient subject?

Writing the review

1. Summarize. Two or three sentences on what the study did and what it found, so the editor and authors can see you read it as intended.
2. Separate major from minor. Major points affect whether the conclusions hold. Minor points are corrections. Numbering them lets authors respond point by point.
3. Be specific. Cite the page, line or table. "The methods are unclear" cannot be acted on; "the breakpoint edition is not stated in section 2.3" can.
4. Say what would fix it. Where possible, state what additional analysis, control or qualification would make the claim supportable.
5. Recommend, in confidence to the editor. Your recommendation and any concern about misconduct go in the confidential comments, not to the authors.
6. Tone. Write as you would want a review of your own work written.

Reviewer service

Peer review contributes independent subject expertise and constructive assessment to the scholarly record. Reviewing does not confer an advantage in the review or acceptance of the reviewer’s own submissions. Recognition or administrative arrangements remain separate from editorial decisions.

Apply to review

Researchers and laboratory professionals with relevant expertise and a publication record may express interest in reviewing for IJCM. Include a CV, publication list, ORCID iD where available, specific areas of expertise and availability. Topics may concern clinical laboratory research, human or animal pathogens, infection biology or associated analytical methods.

Send an expression of interest to [email protected]. Reviewer selection is based on expertise, conflicts of interest and the needs of an individual manuscript.

Resources for reviewers

Reviewer login at ManuscriptZone. For account or workflow assistance, contact [email protected].

Consult the Aims and Scope, Editorial Policies and Instructions for Authors. Use the relevant EQUATOR reporting guideline and COPE guidance. Reporting checklists support assessment; they do not replace study-specific judgment.