All submissions undergo editorial screening followed by expert peer review. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, clinical knowledge, and research methodology. Editors evaluate reviewer feedback to ensure consistency and relevance before issuing decisions. Editorial decisions are independent of funding sources and Article Processing Charges.

The journal uses a structured peer review process with clear editorial checkpoints. Reviewers focus on methodological rigor, public health relevance, and ethical compliance. Authors receive detailed feedback and guidance for revision. We aim to provide timely decisions while maintaining the depth of review required for infectious disease research.

Editors operate independently and make decisions based on scientific merit, clinical relevance, and ethical compliance. Sponsorship, advertising, and commercial relationships do not influence editorial outcomes. Conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed according to best practice.

Authorship must reflect substantial contributions to study design, data analysis, or manuscript development. All authors must approve the final submission and agree to be accountable for their contributions. Any changes to authorship after submission require written approval from all listed authors.

All authors must disclose financial or non financial relationships that could influence the study. Funding sources and sponsor roles should be clearly stated. Editors and reviewers with conflicts are recused from evaluation. Transparency protects the integrity of public health research and allows readers to assess potential bias.

Human studies require documented ethics approval and informed consent. Animal studies must follow institutional and national guidelines. For clinical trials, registration and compliance with CONSORT are expected. Patient identifiable data must be handled with strict confidentiality.

Authors must provide a data availability statement and describe how supporting materials can be accessed. When data cannot be shared, provide a clear justification and access pathway for qualified researchers. Transparent reporting strengthens trust and enables reproducibility.

Figures must accurately represent results without inappropriate manipulation. If images are adjusted for clarity, the adjustments must be applied consistently and described when necessary. Editors may request original data or raw images when concerns arise.

Plagiarism, duplicate publication, and data fabrication are unacceptable. Submissions are screened for similarity and ethical compliance. If misconduct is suspected, the journal may request explanations, notify institutions, or reject the manuscript. Published articles may be corrected or retracted when necessary.

Posting on a recognized preprint server is permitted, but it must be disclosed at submission. Submissions should not have been published in another journal, and overlapping manuscripts under review elsewhere are not allowed.

Clinical trials should be registered in a public registry when required by funders or regulations. Registration numbers must be included in the abstract and methods, and any protocol deviations should be reported transparently.

We issue corrections for errors that do not invalidate the findings and retractions for serious issues such as unreliable data or ethical violations. Updates are clearly linked to the original article so readers can access the most accurate version. We follow standard publishing ethics guidance globally.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a clear, evidence based response. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors and may involve additional peer review. Complaints regarding editorial processes are handled confidentially and in line with industry standards. We respond promptly.