Scientific Coherence
Research question, methods, results, and conclusions must align without interpretive gaps.
Instructions for Author
Comprehensive Author Guidance for International Journal of Inflammation Research
Build reviewer ready manuscripts with clear methodology, transparent data context, and disciplined reporting.
This guide defines the operational and scientific standards IJIR uses during screening, peer review, revision, and production. Authors should treat these instructions as a practical quality framework. Complete submissions move faster, attract stronger reviews, and produce more reliable publication outcomes across inflammation and immunology research domains.
Single blind
Peer review
Ethics
Required
Data
Transparency
Global
Open access
What Editors and Reviewers Evaluate First
Early editorial confidence is built through scope fit, endpoint traceability, declaration quality, and reproducible methodological detail.
Operational Readiness
Submission files, declarations, and metadata should be complete before upload.
Evidence Proportionality
Claims must remain consistent with design limitations and reported statistical context.
Submission Preparation Checklist by Stage
Use the sections below as a stage based checklist from manuscript architecture to post acceptance proofing.
Scope and Framing
Open with a clear inflammation research context and explain why the question carries translational importance. For this requirement, clear documentation reduces ambiguity in methodological interpretation and protects quality without adding unnecessary delay.
Structured Abstract
Use concise objective, methods, results, and conclusion segments with measurable outputs and no overstatement. In this requirement, stronger reporting discipline prevents avoidable back and forth during technical clarification and helps keep reviewer feedback specific and actionable.
Endpoint Mapping
Link each primary claim to a named figure, table, or supplementary file so evidence traceability is immediate. When this requirement is specified precisely, communication quality improves across authors, reviewers, and editors, and accepted manuscripts reach publication with fewer corrections.
Method Reproducibility
Report instrument settings, assay thresholds, normalization logic, software versions, and exclusion criteria clearly. Detailed treatment of this requirement gives reviewers a stable basis for evidence checks while preserving scientific transparency in the published record.
Cohort Description
State recruitment logic, baseline characteristics, confounder handling, and follow up windows for external validity assessment. Operational clarity in this requirement supports fair comparison across competing submissions while reinforcing trust in editorial independence and rigor.
Statistical Reporting
Include effect size, uncertainty context, model assumptions, and multiplicity approach where relevant. A robust description of this requirement strengthens confidence in claims, limits, and endpoint mapping and supports predictable workflow timing for authors and editors.
Data Availability
Repository identifiers, access conditions, and restriction rationale should be explicit and consistent across files. Well structured handling of this requirement helps editors triage scope and rigor faster while improving revision efficiency and production readiness.
Ethics and Consent
Human and animal studies require approval details and consent language aligned with study type and jurisdiction. High quality framing of this requirement improves alignment between reviewer comments and revision priorities and shortens the path to a defensible final decision.
Conflict Disclosure
Declare financial and non financial interests with enough detail to preserve interpretation confidence. Consistent language around this requirement improves consistency across first round and re review decisions while maintaining fairness across different manuscript types.
Funding Transparency
Describe sponsor roles in design, analysis, manuscript drafting, and publication decisions. A transparent approach to this requirement keeps decision rationale traceable at each handling stage and improves the reliability of downstream indexing signals.
Figure Governance
Legends, units, and panel labels should support standalone interpretation without hidden assumptions. For this requirement, clear documentation reduces ambiguity in methodological interpretation and protects quality without adding unnecessary delay.
Reference Integrity
Verify DOIs, citation matching, and recency balance to strengthen scientific traceability. In this requirement, stronger reporting discipline prevents avoidable back and forth during technical clarification and helps keep reviewer feedback specific and actionable.
Language Precision
Technical wording should be concise and consistent across sections to reduce reviewer ambiguity. When this requirement is specified precisely, communication quality improves across authors, reviewers, and editors, and accepted manuscripts reach publication with fewer corrections.
Revision Letter Quality
Point by point response mapping with exact manuscript locations improves re review efficiency. Detailed treatment of this requirement gives reviewers a stable basis for evidence checks while preserving scientific transparency in the published record.
Metadata Consistency
Author names, affiliations, keywords, and funding entries must match between manuscript and portal fields. Operational clarity in this requirement supports fair comparison across competing submissions while reinforcing trust in editorial independence and rigor.
Supplement Control
Supplementary files should be version controlled, clearly named, and directly cited in results discussion. A robust description of this requirement strengthens confidence in claims, limits, and endpoint mapping and supports predictable workflow timing for authors and editors.
Authorship Governance
Define contributor roles early and confirm author order before final submission to avoid post decision conflicts. Well structured handling of this requirement helps editors triage scope and rigor faster while improving revision efficiency and production readiness.
Pre Acceptance Audit
Run a final compliance audit for declarations, permissions, and metadata before acceptance confirmation. High quality framing of this requirement improves alignment between reviewer comments and revision priorities and shortens the path to a defensible final decision.
Proof Stage Discipline
After acceptance, respond rapidly to proof queries to avoid release delays and indexing inconsistencies. Consistent language around this requirement improves consistency across first round and re review decisions while maintaining fairness across different manuscript types.
Long Term Reliability
Submission discipline improves downstream citation confidence and reduces correction risk after publication. A transparent approach to this requirement keeps decision rationale traceable at each handling stage and improves the reliability of downstream indexing signals.
Decision Traceability
Consistent scientific reporting, metadata precision, and communication discipline improve editorial efficiency and long term discoverability. For this requirement, clear documentation reduces ambiguity in methodological interpretation and protects quality without adding unnecessary delay.
Metadata Integrity
Consistent scientific reporting, metadata precision, and communication discipline improve editorial efficiency and long term discoverability. In this requirement, stronger reporting discipline prevents avoidable back and forth during technical clarification and helps keep reviewer feedback specific and actionable.
Reproducibility Signals
Consistent scientific reporting, metadata precision, and communication discipline improve editorial efficiency and long term discoverability. When this requirement is specified precisely, communication quality improves across authors, reviewers, and editors, and accepted manuscripts reach publication with fewer corrections.
Additional Practical Guidance for Instructions For Author
The points below add operational detail for submission architecture and reporting compliance, helping authors, reviewers, and editors keep decisions consistent from first screening to final publication. This final checklist layer reduces avoidable resubmission delays, improves proof-stage accuracy, and supports cleaner indexing metadata after acceptance.
Publication Readiness
Documented Publication Readiness controls in submission architecture and reporting compliance improve comparability across submissions and revision rounds. When teams apply this early, reviewer comments become more specific, revision requests are easier to action, and production handoff has fewer compliance surprises.
Operational Clarity
Practical Operational Clarity checkpoints for submission architecture and reporting compliance support faster, better documented editorial reasoning. The benefit is measurable: fewer avoidable queries, better response quality in revision letters, and more reliable metadata at acceptance.
Evidence Mapping
Evidence Mapping within submission architecture and reporting compliance gives editors a clearer basis for triage and reviewer assignment. This usually reduces clarification loops, improves decision confidence, and protects publication timelines without compromising scientific rigor.
Decision Readiness
Strong Decision Readiness practices in submission architecture and reporting compliance make scientific claims easier to verify during peer review. Early adoption of this control strengthens communication quality between authors, reviewers, and editors and lowers the risk of post-acceptance corrections.
Revision Strategy
Consistent Revision Strategy standards across submission architecture and reporting compliance reduce ambiguity when manuscripts move between handling stages. As a result, authors receive clearer guidance, editors close decisions with less rework, and final records remain stronger for indexing and citation use.
Metadata Accuracy
Documented Metadata Accuracy controls in submission architecture and reporting compliance improve comparability across submissions and revision rounds. When teams apply this early, reviewer comments become more specific, revision requests are easier to action, and production handoff has fewer compliance surprises.
Communication Precision
Practical Communication Precision checkpoints for submission architecture and reporting compliance support faster, better documented editorial reasoning. The benefit is measurable: fewer avoidable queries, better response quality in revision letters, and more reliable metadata at acceptance.
Compliance Traceability
Compliance Traceability within submission architecture and reporting compliance gives editors a clearer basis for triage and reviewer assignment. This usually reduces clarification loops, improves decision confidence, and protects publication timelines without compromising scientific rigor.
High quality manuscripts combine scientific rigor with operational readiness. Both are required for efficient editorial decisions.
Before submission, verify that every major conclusion is directly supported by a traceable evidence element in the manuscript package.
Submit with Confidence to IJIR
When your manuscript, declarations, and metadata are aligned, review cycles are faster and decision quality is stronger. Choose your submission route below.
