International Journal of Infection Prevention · For editors
Editors Guidelines
What a handling editor is responsible for at each point of a manuscript’s passage through the journal, and the limits that apply to that responsibility.
Single-blind by default Decisions independent of payment COPE-guided practice
01 · The sequence
Where an editor intervenes
Six points, in the order they arise. Each carries a specific responsibility and a specific limit.
- 01 Scope triage All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Scope is judged against the aims and scope page as approved, which is deliberately wider than hospital infection control. A laboratory, environmental, veterinary, behavioral or health-systems manuscript is in scope when prevention is among the questions it investigates.
- 02 Conflict check and recusal Before taking a manuscript, check for interests that could affect judgment — shared institution, recent collaboration, competing work, financial interest. Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions, which are handled independently, and from any manuscript where a declared interest could affect their judgment. Hand the manuscript back to the editorial office rather than managing the conflict privately.
- 03 Reviewer selection Choose reviewers for subject expertise relevant to the design in front of you, checking for the same conflicts. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. A methods-heavy manuscript may need a reviewer for the method as well as one for the subject.
- 04 Handling the review Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers. Read each report for whether it engages with the evidence, and set aside a report that rests on a preference rather than a scientific objection.
- 05 The decision The decision belongs to the editor, not to a vote of the reviewers. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Give authors reasons they can act on, and say which points must be addressed for a revision to succeed.
- 06 Escalation Concerns about ethics approval, consent, data integrity, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, authorship or duplicate submission go to the editorial office rather than being resolved in a decision letter. They are investigated following COPE guidance, with the corresponding author given an opportunity to respond.
02 · Limits
What an editor may not weigh
Editorial decisions are reached independently of fees, memberships, optional services, and editorial or reviewing roles.
- Payment
- The article processing charge is invoiced only after acceptance and takes no part in the decision. Whether an author holds a membership, expects a fee reduction or has an institution paying is information an editor neither receives nor seeks. A billing question that reaches an editor goes to the editorial office.
- Scope, not gatekeeping
- The approved scope is the test. Editors apply it as written and should not add further conditions of their own — a requirement that every paper demonstrate novelty, a mechanism, or a measured clinical benefit; a preference for a particular country, setting or resource level; or a minimum sample size applied across designs. Evidential standards belong to the assessment of a claim, not to eligibility.
- Confidentiality
- A submitted manuscript is confidential. Discuss it only with people involved in its assessment, and make no use of unpublished material.
- Artificial intelligence
- 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 condition applies to an editor handling a manuscript.
03 · After publication
Appeals, corrections and the published record
- Appeals
- An appeal against a decision is considered by an editor who was not responsible for it. The question is whether the decision rested on a factual or procedural error, not whether a different editor would have decided differently.
- Corrections and retractions
- Errors affecting the record are corrected by a citable notice linked to the article, which itself remains available. Retraction and expressions of concern follow the procedure on the editorial policies page.
- Board membership
- Changes to the editorial board — membership, roles, affiliations and profile details — are made through the publisher’s editorial approval process. The current board is published on the editorial board page.
Support
The editorial office
Conflicts that need a second view, integrity concerns, reviewer-supply problems and anything touching billing go to [email protected].