Peer Review Policy
All research content published in Annals of Infectious Diseases and Therapy is subject to rigorous peer review. This page describes how review works, what is expected of reviewers, and how decisions are made.
Model
AIDT uses double-blind peer review: reviewers do not know the authors' identities and authors do not know the reviewers' identities. Editors know both.
Editorials, book reviews, and obituaries are assessed by the editors but are not sent for external review; this is stated on the published article.
Process
- Screening. The editorial office checks completeness and screens for text similarity. Manuscripts with unacceptable overlap are returned to the authors (see the Plagiarism Policy).
- Editor assignment. The Editor-in-Chief assigns a handling editor with relevant expertise and no conflict of interest.
- Initial assessment. The handling editor may decline a manuscript without external review if it falls outside scope, lacks originality, has fundamental methodological flaws, or does not meet the journal's minimum standards. Such decisions are normally made within 7 days.
- Reviewer selection. The editor invites at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the subject, are not affiliated with the authors' institutions, have not collaborated with the authors in the last five years, and have no other competing interest. Authors may suggest reviewers (who must have an institutional email address and will be verified) and may request the exclusion of specific individuals; editors are not bound by these suggestions.
- Review. Reviewers are asked to report within 14 days on the study's originality, methodological soundness, statistical validity, ethical compliance, clarity, and significance, and to recommend accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Comments to the editor are confidential; comments to the authors are passed on in full but may be edited to remove offensive or identifying content.
- Decision. The handling editor weighs the reviews and recommends a decision; the Editor-in-Chief approves it. Decisions are based on the content of the reviews, not simply the number of positive or negative recommendations. The editor's decision letter explains the reasons.
- Revision. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers. Major revisions are always re-reviewed.
- Final decision. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final, subject to the Complaints and Appeals Policy.
Reviewer responsibilities
Reviewers must:
- Treat the manuscript as confidential; not share it, discuss it, or use its contents before publication.
- Declare any conflict of interest and decline the invitation if one exists.
- Review objectively and constructively, with reasons for every recommendation.
- Alert the editor to suspected duplicate publication, plagiarism, fabrication, or ethical concerns.
- Not contact the authors directly.
- Not upload any part of the manuscript to generative AI tools or any other external service (see the AI Use Policy).
- Complete the review on time or notify the editor promptly if unable to.
Reviewers who wish to involve a colleague or trainee must first obtain the editor's permission, and the co-reviewer's name is recorded.
Reviewer recognition
Reviewers may claim credit for their work through ORCID or Web of Science Reviewer Recognition. The journal publishes an annual list of reviewers with their consent.
Editors and board members as authors
Submissions by editors or Editorial Board members are handled by another editor with no involvement of the author-editor, who has no access to the manuscript's records in the submission system. Such articles carry a statement to that effect.
Review timeframes
| Stage | Target |
|---|---|
| Technical check | 3 working days |
| Initial editorial assessment | 7 days |
| First decision after review | 21 days |
| Publication after acceptance | 21 days |
Actual times are reported on the journal's About page and updated annually.
Last updated: 29 September 2026
