For Reviewers
International Journal of Vasculitis
A useful review tells the editor what the evidence supports and tells the authors how to make the work better. This page describes what the journal asks for and what it undertakes in return.
Confidentiality
A manuscript under review is unpublished work held in confidence. It is not shared, discussed or used outside the review.
Reviewing a manuscript
01
Before accepting
Accept only where you can judge the specific question and can return the review within the period you agree with the editor.
Declare any competing interest — a recent collaboration, a shared institution, a commercial interest or work in direct competition — and decline where it would affect your judgment.
02
Read for the question
Ask whether the question is worth answering, whether the design can answer it, whether the analysis was done and reported properly, and whether the conclusions stay within what the data show.
Where a reporting checklist applies to the design, check the manuscript against it.
03
Write comments the authors can use
Separate what is essential from what would merely be desirable, and give the reason for each point so the authors can respond to it.
Confidential comments to the editor are for matters that should not go to the authors directly, such as a suspected integrity problem.
04
Respect the review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
05
Handle the manuscript properly
Do not use unpublished findings, data or ideas from a manuscript in your own work, and do not pass the manuscript to a colleague without the editor’s agreement.
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.
06
After the review
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
The editor weighs the reviews together with the manuscript itself; a recommendation is advice to the editor rather than the decision.
What the journal undertakes
Reviewers are chosen for their ability to judge the specific question, and are told the outcome of the manuscripts they review.
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer’s own submissions.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Reviewers
- Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- Decisions
- Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
- Independence
- Those decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and roles.
- File handling
- After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.