Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (JMID) employs a rigorous and independent peer-review process to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scientific quality, methodological soundness, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it is appropriate for the scope of JMID and meets the journal's basic scientific, ethical, and technical requirements.
Manuscripts that are unsuitable for the journal's scope or do not meet essential submission requirements may be rejected without external peer review.
Manuscripts considered suitable for further consideration are assigned to appropriate external peer reviewers.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
JMID uses a double-blind peer-review model.
Under this model, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.
Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymized peer review, in accordance with the journal's manuscript preparation requirements.
JMID takes reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality and anonymity of authors and reviewers during the peer-review process.
3. Peer-Review Assignment
Following the initial editorial assessment, manuscripts requiring external peer review are normally evaluated by a minimum of three independent and appropriately qualified reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment of the manuscript.
The journal may appoint additional reviewers when necessary, including when reviews are inconsistent, insufficient, or when additional expertise is required.
4. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively;
assess the scientific quality, methodology, originality, significance, and clarity of the work;
identify relevant ethical, methodological, statistical, or reporting concerns;
maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the peer-review process;
disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
decline the invitation if they are unable to provide an impartial review;
avoid using unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal or professional advantage; and
provide comments that are supported by appropriate scientific reasoning.
Peer-review reports are confidential and are not disclosed to third parties except where disclosure is required for legitimate editorial, ethical, or legal reasons or where the reviewer has explicitly consented to disclosure.
5. Reviewer Timeframe
Reviewers are normally given 28 days to complete and submit their assessments.
If a reviewer does not respond to the invitation or does not submit a review within the expected timeframe, the journal may send a reminder and/or withdraw the invitation and invite an alternative reviewer.
The journal may extend the review period when circumstances warrant and when this is likely to facilitate the timely completion of a high-quality review.
6. Editorial Evaluation and Decision
After the required peer reviews have been received, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' comments together with the manuscript and other relevant editorial considerations.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor makes the final editorial decision. Possible decisions may include:
Accept;
Minor Revision;
Major Revision; or
Reject.
The number and recommendations of reviewers are considered as part of the editorial assessment but do not, by themselves, determine the final decision.
Editors may request additional reviews when necessary to reach a well-informed editorial decision.
7. Communication with the Corresponding Author
The corresponding author is notified when peer-review reports have been received and an editorial decision has been reached.
The editor communicates the relevant reviewer comments and any additional editorial comments to the corresponding author.
Reviewer identities remain confidential under the double-blind peer-review model.
8. Revision of Manuscripts
When revision is requested, the corresponding author should submit the revised manuscript and a detailed response to the reviewers' and editor's comments, normally within three weeks of the revision request.
Authors should clearly indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed and identify changes made to the manuscript.
If additional time is required, authors should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline.
If a revised manuscript is not submitted within the specified period and no extension has been requested or granted, the manuscript may be considered withdrawn from further consideration. A withdrawn manuscript may require a new submission if the authors wish to pursue publication at a later date.
9. Review of Revised Manuscripts
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment when the editor considers additional external review necessary.
The editor may also seek assessment from new reviewers where appropriate.
The extent of further peer review depends on the nature and significance of the revisions and the editorial assessment.
10. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence
All manuscripts submitted to JMID are treated as confidential during the editorial and peer-review process.
Editors and reviewers must not disclose, use, or otherwise exploit unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts except as necessary for legitimate editorial purposes.
Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of scientific and editorial considerations and are not influenced by commercial interests, financial considerations, or other inappropriate external pressures.
11. Peer-Review Timeline
JMID aims to provide authors with timely editorial decisions while maintaining the rigor and quality of the peer-review process.
Under normal circumstances and assuming timely reviewer responses and prompt author revisions, the process from submission through the initial review and revision stages may typically require approximately 6–8 weeks. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional reviews, and the time required for authors to complete revisions.
12. Final Publication Decision
The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor with appropriate editorial authority.
Peer reviewers provide expert assessments and recommendations but do not make the final publication decision.
JMID reserves the right to decline publication when a manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial standards, even where individual reviewer recommendations may differ.
