International Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Editors guidelines
What a handling editor of the International Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases does with a manuscript: assessing fit, checking conflicts, choosing reviewers, deciding, and knowing when to step aside.
Applies to Editorial board and handling editors Review Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Recusal Required where an interest exists Escalation Editorial office
01 · The role
What a handling editor is responsible for
A handling editor decides whether a manuscript is assessed, by whom, and on what basis it is accepted or declined. The role is one of stewardship rather than adjudication of taste: the editor's own view of a subject is one input among the reviewers', and the decision has to be explicable to an author from the evidence in front of both.
These guidelines cover the sequence an editor works through. The rules they apply are stated in full on the editorial policies page, which governs where the two differ.
02 · First assessment
Assessing a new manuscript
-
Check the scope
The subject must be a sexually transmitted pathogen or the clinical, laboratory, epidemiological or preventive response to one. A study of a non-sexually-transmitted pathogen belongs here only where it bears directly on STI co-infection or differential diagnosis; behavioral, qualitative and implementation studies fit when their central contribution concerns STI transmission, prevention, care or access. Evaluate methods according to the study design rather than requiring a biological or clinical endpoint in every study.
-
Check your own position
Before reading further, establish whether you have a competing interest — a collaboration, a competing project, a shared institution, a financial interest, or a personal relationship with an author. If one exists, or could reasonably appear to, return the manuscript to the editorial office for reassignment.
-
Check that the manuscript is assessable
An ethics statement documenting approval or the applicable exemption or waiver, consent statements where required, trial registration where applicable, the data-availability statement, declarations, and the reporting checklist for the design. A manuscript missing these is returned to the authors before review rather than sent to reviewers who cannot evaluate it.
-
Decide whether it proceeds
Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Where a manuscript is returned without review, say why, in terms the authors can act on.
03 · Reviewers
Selecting and managing reviewers
- The model. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Match the expertise to the manuscript. An STI manuscript often needs more than one kind of reader: a laboratory reviewer for assay performance, a clinical reviewer for management, an epidemiologist or statistician for quantitative analysis, or a qualitative-methods or implementation specialist for the relevant study design. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- Check each reviewer's independence before inviting: recent collaboration, competing work, shared institution, or a declared interest in the outcome.
- Do not invite reviewers the authors have asked you to exclude without establishing why, and treat author-suggested reviewers as suggestions only.
- Agree a date and hold it. Ask reviewers to accept or decline promptly, and to say as soon as they know a deadline will slip, so the manuscript can be reassigned rather than stalled.
- When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
- Read the reviews before passing them on. A review that is abusive, that reviews the authors rather than the work, or that discloses the reviewer's identity when it should not, is not forwarded as written.
04 · Decision
Reaching and communicating a decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Editorial decisions are independent of any fee, service, membership or role.
Where reviewers disagree, the disagreement is resolved on the evidence rather than by counting recommendations: identify which reviewer is addressing the point that determines whether the findings hold, and seek a further review where neither does. A decision letter states the decision, the reasoning, and the specific revisions required, separating what must change from what the authors may consider.
- Do not require citations to your own work or to the journal as a condition of acceptance.
- Do not accept a manuscript on the strength of who wrote it, where they work, or who funded it.
- Do not let a revision cycle drift. Ask for what is needed once, in full, rather than in successive rounds that each raise something new.
05 · Sensitive content
Handling STI and HIV research responsibly
Sexual-health data describe people, and a manuscript in this field can identify someone through a combination of details no single field would reveal. Editors check that identification risk is minimized, including risks arising from combinations of indirect details, and identifiable case material carries written consent for publication covering the specific details and images submitted.
Editors also read for interpretation. Populations are described by what is true of them, in the terminology used in the authoritative clinical and public-health literature. Infection is not treated as a property of an identity, and risk is described where it is measured rather than attributed. Where a manuscript generalizes from a small or stigmatized population beyond what its data support, that is a substantive review point, not a matter of wording.
Watch for
Small cell counts combined with a named site and a narrow date range. Identifiable clinical photographs. Causal language applied to cross-sectional associations. Behavioral categories used as risk groups rather than as measured exposures. Conclusions about policy drawn from a single-site sample.
06 · Integrity
Confidentiality, AI use and escalation
- Confidentiality
- A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not discuss it outside the review process, do not share it, and do not use unpublished information from it in your own work.
- AI use
- Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same restriction applies to editors handling a manuscript.
- Recusal
- Return the manuscript to the editorial office where a competing interest exists or appears to. An editor who is an author on a submission takes no part in its assessment and has no access to reviewer identities or to the decision.
- Escalation
- Suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication, image manipulation or an ethics failure goes to the editorial office at [email protected] rather than to the authors. Suspected misconduct is investigated following COPE guidance.
- Concerns after publication
- Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern are published as part of the record and remain linked to the article they concern. Raise a concern about a published article with the editorial office as soon as it arises.
- Appeals
- An appeal against a decision is considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.
07 · Joining
Serving as an editor
Researchers and clinicians may express interest by emailing the editorial office with a CV, ORCID iD where available, subject expertise and relevant publications. Appointment follows editorial assessment; an expression of interest is not an appointment. The editorial board page lists the current members with their affiliation, recorded research interests and ORCID iD, and states where the journal is particularly seeking expertise.
08 · Routes
Where to go next
- Editorial policiesReview, ethics, integrity, corrections and retractions.
- Reviewer guidelinesWhat the journal asks of a peer reviewer.
- Editorial boardWho provides scholarly oversight, and their recorded expertise.
- Aims and scopeEvery research domain with a worked example, and the boundary.
- Instructions for authorsWhat authors are asked to supply, and in what form.
- Current issueThe most recent research the journal has published.
International Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (IJSTD) · ISSN 2994-6743 · Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302 · published open access by Open Access Pub under CC BY 4.0. Editorial decisions are independent of any fee, service, membership or role.