Instructions for Reviewers

JCCP reviewing policy

All manuscripts will be internally reviewed and then assigned to at least two peer-reviewers. Based on the comments of the peer-reviewers and the results of internal review, the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision about each manuscript.

Upon accepting to review a manuscript for JCCP, you will be asked to indicate one of the following actions for the manuscript: Accept; Accept with minor revisions; Accept pending major revisions and re-review; Reject from publication.

Elements to be reviewed

Novelty and relevance – is the subject of the manuscript original, interesting and does it contribute to the advancement of science?

Adequacy – does the subject of the manuscript adhere to the journal's field of interest (infectious diseases)?

Study design (for Original articles) – is the study design appropriate for the hypothesis?

Statistics (for Original articles) – are the statistical methods appropriately used in interpreting data?

Level of interest (for Reviews*, Expert Opinions#, Case reports^, Correspondence§) – *Is the reviewed topic well chosen? Does it cover specific areas not previously discussed elsewhere or does it serve to create a general informed picture in a wider area of medical practice? #Does the expert opinion bring a novel approach in the field? ^Is the case report interesting? §Does the correspondence paper provide clarification for a previously published article or does it bring insight into a particular issue?

Structure

• Title – does it clearly describe the article?
• Abstract – does it reflect the content of the article?
• Introduction – does it accurately summarize relevant research to provide context? Does it clearly state the problem being investigated?
• Method – data collection; procedures followed; appropriate sampling; data interpretation instruments
• Results – are the results of the study clearly described?
• Discussion – are the results compared to other studies in the field? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Do discussions and/or conclusions explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward? Does the conclusion logically follow from the results and discussion?
• Figures and tables – do they inform the reader? Are they understandable without having to refer to the main text?
• References - if the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are the references accurate? Are there any important works that have been omitted? At this point, feel free to suggest any references to be included.
• Language – is the manuscript written in clear, medical English language?

Ethics – please comment on any suspicion of plagiarism or fraud, if that be the case. For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Have the norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects been respected?