Editors Guidelines for JIG
Consistent editorial handling ensures fairness, speed, and scientific quality.
Handling Standards for Assigned Manuscripts
Editors should combine technical judgment with clear communication.
Assess scope fit, ethics completeness, and manuscript readiness before review assignment. Out-of-scope submissions should be declined with concise rationale.
Select reviewers with suitable expertise and monitor timeline progress proactively to prevent avoidable delays.
From Intake to Final Recommendation
Structured workflow improves outcome consistency.
Initial Screening
Confirm scope, integrity declarations, and technical completeness.
Reviewer Assignment
Invite experts with balanced topic-method competence.
Review Synthesis
Distill major issues into clear decision-ready guidance.
Decision Letter
Provide specific required revisions and rationale.
Writing Actionable Decisions
Editors should prioritize clarity and scientific relevance.
Separate required revisions from optional suggestions and avoid contradictory guidance. Where reviewer comments conflict, provide a clear editorial synthesis for authors.
Document key decision logic in the editorial system to support transparency and continuity.
Editorial Decision Quality Standards
Guidance for consistent assessments across methodology, novelty, and translational relevance.
Editors should frame decisions around three priorities: scientific rigor, reporting transparency, and relevance to immunology and geriatrics practice. Recommendations to authors must be specific, evidence-based, and aligned with reviewer comments so revision guidance is actionable rather than generic.
When reviewer opinions diverge, editors are expected to identify the methodological source of disagreement and request targeted clarification instead of broad rewrites. Clear adjudication reduces review fatigue and improves turnaround quality for both authors and peer reviewers.
For policy interpretation or case escalation, editors should contact [email protected] with manuscript context and decision rationale.
Decision letters should summarize core acceptance barriers in plain language and prioritize changes that materially affect interpretability. Clear prioritization helps authors focus effort on high-impact revisions and improves the efficiency of subsequent review rounds.
Editorial and peer-review roles deliver the greatest value when expertise, communication quality, and response reliability are all strong. Contributors should keep profiles current, provide evidence-based recommendations, and frame feedback in ways that support actionable revision decisions. Consistent service quality improves turnaround times and strengthens trust across authors, editors, and reviewers. JIG uses this collaborative standard to maintain high publication quality in a field where methodological precision and clinical interpretation both matter. Professionals who engage with discipline and clarity not only improve journal outcomes, but also build durable reputation value and long-term leadership opportunities in the research community.
Apply Editorial Best Practices
Use these guidelines to maintain efficient and fair peer-review outcomes in JIG.
For support: [email protected]
