Editors Guidelines

The handling editor

Each submission is assigned to an editor with subject knowledge of the manuscript. That editor screens it, selects the reviewers, reads their assessments and takes the decision. Reviewers advise; the editor decides.

The editor's work is judgment, not arithmetic. Two reviewers disagreeing is not a tie to be broken by a third — it is information about which parts of the manuscript are contested, and the editor's job is to say which reading the evidence supports.

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.

Initial screening

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Screening decisions should give a clear, manuscript-specific reason.

• Is the subject in scope, judged by the relevance test rather than by the country of origin?
• Is the article type one the journal publishes, and is the manuscript recognizably that type?
• Are the ethics approval, consent and, where applicable, trial registration present?
• Are the methods reported in enough detail that a reviewer could assess them?
• Do the declarations — funding, competing interests, data availability, AI use — exist?
• Is there a text-overlap concern that needs reading before the manuscript goes further?

A manuscript returned at screening gets a reason specific enough to act on. "Out of scope" on its own is not useful; which test it fails, and why, is.

Judging tropical relevance

The most common screening error is treating a tropical country as tropical relevance. A trial of a general intervention that happened to recruit in a tropical country is not a tropical-medicine manuscript; a study of how that intervention performs under endemic-setting constraints is.

• Globally distributed infections — tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis, diarrheal and respiratory disease, antimicrobial resistance — are in scope only on the conditions set out on Aims and Scope.
• One Health and environmental work needs a stated pathway to human tropical health, not an implied one.
• Methods and modeling are eligible when they make a substantive tropical-medicine contribution. Evaluation should match the design and claims; useful methods need not already be clinically deployed.
• Screening, target discovery and lead studies are in scope when they address a tropical pathogen or disease. Controls, activity and selectivity evidence should match the study stage and claims; a completed development pathway is not required.
• Case reports do not have to be the first of their kind. Diagnostic learning, an imported presentation outside its usual range, a treatment failure or an emerging-disease signal are each sufficient.

Selecting reviewers

Who

Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Match the reviewers to what the manuscript actually turns on: a prevalence survey needs someone who will check the denominator, a diagnostic study someone who will check the reference standard, a vector study someone who will check species identification.

Setting expertise

Where a study is conducted in an endemic setting, include a reviewer who works in a comparable one. A methodological objection that ignores what is possible in the field is not a useful objection.

Conflicts

Check institution, recent co-authorship and any commercial interest before inviting. A reviewer who declines for conflict has done the right thing.

Double-blind

When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.

Chasing

Follow up late reviews rather than waiting. An author is owed movement, and an editor who cannot obtain a second review should say so and decide on what is available rather than let a manuscript sit.

What to check, by study design

Epidemiology and surveillance

Is the case definition stated and applied consistently? Is there a real denominator behind every rate? Do the geographic and temporal boundaries match the claim? Is under-ascertainment acknowledged with its likely direction? Is the conclusion confined to the population studied?

Diagnostic accuracy

Is the reference standard appropriate and applied to everyone? Does the study population reflect intended use, or is it a case–control spectrum that will overstate performance? Were readings blinded? Are predictive values given with the prevalence they were computed at?

Clinical studies

Are diagnostic criteria explicit? Are outcomes defined in advance? Are confounders handled? Does the discussion claim more than the design supports?

Parasitology and vector work

How were species identified, and is the method adequate for the claim? Is sampling effort reported? For susceptibility work, are the assay, the reference strain and the interpretive criteria stated?

Outbreak and emerging disease

Is case attribution supported by the diagnostic evidence? Is the causal language proportionate to the design? Is the data source and its release authority stated?

Across all designs

Watch for overinterpretation: association reported as cause, a subgroup finding presented as the result, and a conclusion extended beyond the setting. These are the most frequent grounds for revision.

Taking the decision

• State the decision plainly and give the reasons in the editor's own words, not only the reviewers' reports.
• Where revision is invited, say which points are essential and which are suggestions. An author should not have to guess.
• Where reviewers disagree, say which reading the evidence supports rather than passing the disagreement to the author.
• Where a manuscript is declined on grounds that could be fixed, say so — an author may be able to place it well elsewhere.
• Decline courteously. A rejection is a judgment about a manuscript, never about the authors.

Conflicts, recusal and confidentiality

Recusal

Do not handle a manuscript from your own institution, from a recent collaborator, or where any other interest could reasonably be seen to affect your judgment. Return it for reassignment rather than deciding it is probably fine.

Your own manuscripts

Editor-authored manuscripts are handled independently. The editor-author receives reports and decisions only in the normal author capacity and has no privileged editorial access or role in handling the submission. Reviewer anonymity follows the selected review model.

Confidentiality

A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not disclose its existence or content, do not use unpublished material, and do not share it outside the review process.

AI tools

Do not enter manuscript content into a tool where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same restriction applies to editors as to reviewers.

When something looks wrong

Raise it with the editorial office rather than resolving it alone. The journal investigates with the publisher and, where warranted, the authors' institution; the authors are given the opportunity to respond before any conclusion is reached.

• Text overlap that a similarity report flags — read in context; a percentage is never an automatic decision.
• Images that appear duplicated, spliced or altered in a way that changes what they show.
• Data that cannot be reconciled with the reported methods, or numbers that do not add up.
• Ethics approval or consent that is missing, vague or inconsistent with the study described.
• Authorship that appears not to reflect who did the work.
• A study that appears already published elsewhere.

The procedures, and the corrections and retractions that may follow, are on Editorial Policies. Reviewer guidance is on For reviewers.

Editorial service and resources

Apply for editorial service · Editorial service · Editor resources