Editors Guidelines
These guidelines support editors in delivering fair, timely, and evidence based decisions for cytokine research.
Editors are expected to uphold confidentiality, integrity, and clear communication at every stage.
Why Researchers Trust Us
Fast Publication
Average 4 weeks to first decision, 3 weeks to publication after acceptance
Expert Review
35+ editorial board members specializing in cytokine biology and immunology
Global Reach
Research disseminated to immunology professionals in 45+ countries immediately
Rigorous Standards
Double-blind peer review ensuring highest scientific quality and reproducibility
Journal at a Glance
International Journal of Cytokine publishes research that advances understanding of immune signaling, inflammation, and translational immunology. The journal emphasizes rigorous methodology, clear reporting, and clinical relevance to support evidence based care.
Our publishing model combines rapid editorial triage with expert peer review so that cytokine research can move from discovery to application efficiently.
- Peer reviewed open access journal focused on cytokine science.
- Double blind peer review and structured editorial decisions.
- DOI assignment and metadata delivery for discoverability.
- Global readership across immunology and clinical communities.
Quality and Transparency Commitment
Quality assurance is embedded throughout the IJCY workflow. Editorial screening, ethical checks, and reviewer guidance ensure that published results are credible, reproducible, and clinically meaningful.
Authors receive clear decision letters and detailed revision guidance, helping them improve manuscripts and communicate findings with precision.
- Structured reviewer criteria and decision templates.
- Integrity checks for originality and data clarity.
- Transparent timelines and consistent communication.
Editorial Screening
Editors evaluate scope alignment, methodological quality, and ethical compliance before sending manuscripts to review.
Manuscripts outside scope or lacking approvals may be returned without review.
Reviewer Selection
Select reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest. Aim for balanced input across clinical and mechanistic perspectives.
- Invite at least two qualified reviewers.
- Avoid institutional or collaborative conflicts.
- Confirm reviewer availability and timelines.
Decision Criteria
Decisions should reflect scientific rigor, clarity, and relevance. Editors summarize key reviewer points and provide actionable guidance to authors.
Evaluate
Assess methods, validity, and contribution to the field.
Synthesize
Summarize reviewer feedback clearly.
Decide
Issue decisions with clear revision requirements.
Communication Best Practices
Decision letters should be respectful, concise, and aligned with reviewer feedback. Highlight priority revisions and provide realistic timelines for resubmission.
Clear communication improves author experience and reduces revision cycles.
Ethics and Confidentiality
Editors maintain confidentiality and report concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical compliance. Escalate sensitive issues to the editorial office promptly.
Clear documentation supports consistent decision making.
Editor Support
Editorial Guidance
Contact the editorial office for policy questions or complex decisions.
[email protected]
