For Reviewers

Instructions for Peer Reviewers

1. Introduction             2. Reviewer Responsibilities 3. Confidentiality 4. Conflicts of Interest           5. Review Timeline    6. How to Conduct the Review          7. Reviewer Recommendation Categories 8. Structure of a Good Review Report

9.   Ethical Obligations of Reviewers 10. Anonymity 11. Reviewer Recognition 12. Declining a Review Invitation 13. Requesting Additional Expertise 14. Revising for Re-Review 15. Communication Channels 16. A Note of Gratitude

1. Introduction

Peer reviewers are essential partners in safeguarding the scientific rigor, accuracy, and credibility of Global Virology Reports (GVR). Your expert evaluation ensures that published research is methodologically sound, ethically responsible, and contributes meaningfully to the global virology community. We deeply appreciate your time, expertise, and commitment to strengthening the quality of scholarly communication.

The purpose of this Reviewer Guideline is to provide a clear, comprehensive framework that supports you throughout the review process. It outlines what GVR expects from its reviewers and how you can efficiently deliver fair, objective, and constructive evaluations.

This guide includes detailed information on:

• Reviewer Responsibilities: What is expected before, during, and after the review.
• Ethical Requirements: Standards for objectivity, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and responsible conduct.
• How to Structure a Review: Suggested format for presenting comments to authors and confidential notes to editors.
• Confidentiality Rules: How to handle manuscript material with care and discretion.
• Timelines: Standard deadlines and procedures for requesting extensions.
• Providing Constructive Feedback: How to help authors improve their work while maintaining professionalism and respect.

Together, these guidelines help ensure that every manuscript submitted to GVR receives a thorough, fair, and high-quality assessment, reflecting the journal’s commitment to excellence in virology research.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

At Global Virology Reports (GVR), reviewers are essential partners in safeguarding the accuracy, rigor, and integrity of the scientific record. To ensure a fair and high-quality assessment process, reviewers are expected to uphold the following responsibilities:

a. Provide Objective and Evidence-Based Assessments

Reviews should be grounded in scientific evidence, free from personal biases, and focused solely on the quality and merit of the work. Constructive and balanced evaluations help authors improve their manuscripts and support sound editorial decisions.

 b. Adhere to the Review Timeline

Timely peer review is vital to an efficient publication process. Reviewers are expected to submit their comments within the agreed timeframe—typically 14 to 21 days. If unforeseen circumstances prevent completion on time, reviewers should notify the editorial office immediately so alternative arrangements can be made.

c. Maintain Strict Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript, or any of its data, ideas, or conclusions, with others without explicit permission from the editorial office. Content under review must not be used for any personal or professional advantage.

d. Declare Conflicts of Interest

Transparency is essential to the credibility of the review process. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including:

• Personal, financial, or academic relationships with the authors
• Competing research interests
• Situations that may compromise objectivity

If a conflict exists, reviewers may be recused or the assignment reassessed.

e. Evaluate Key Manuscript Elements

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript comprehensively, focusing on:

• Scientific Rigor: Strength of the study design, reproducibility, and validity of conclusions.
• Methodological Soundness: Appropriateness and transparency of methods, statistics, and analysis.
• Ethical Compliance: Ethical approval, consent procedures, biosafety considerations, and responsible data handling.
• Novelty and Significance: Contribution to virology and relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Clarity and Organization: Logical structure, quality of writing, completeness of figures/tables, and adherence to reporting guidelines.

f. Avoid Unethical or Inappropriate Practices

Reviewers must refrain from:

• Personal or disparaging remarks directed toward the authors
• Using information obtained through peer review for personal research, academic advantage, or competitive gain
• Contacting authors directly about the manuscript; all communication should occur through the journal’s editorial system

3. Confidentiality

Peer reviewers are entrusted with privileged access to unpublished scientific work. To preserve the integrity of the review process and protect the authors’ intellectual property, strict confidentiality must be maintained at all times. 

a. Confidential Nature of Manuscripts

All manuscripts submitted to Global Virology Reports (GVR) for review are considered confidential documents. They contain original data, hypotheses, and interpretations that must not be disclosed, shared, or used outside the review process.

b. Reviewer Obligations

Reviewers must adhere to the following confidentiality requirements:

• Do not share the manuscript or its files with colleagues, students, or collaborators unless explicitly authorized by the editorial office.
• Do not discuss or reveal any aspect of the manuscript, including its content, findings, authorship, or status, with anyone outside the editorial process.
• Do not use any data, ideas, or methods obtained through peer review for your own research, grant proposals, presentations, or publications.
• Delete all manuscript-related files (including downloads, printed copies, and notes) from your devices and storage systems immediately after submitting the review.

c. Consequences of Breach

Any violation of confidentiality is treated as a serious ethical infraction. Confirmed breaches may result in:

• Permanent removal from the GVR reviewer database
• Notification to the reviewer’s institution or relevant authorities (in severe cases)
• Loss of eligibility for editorial board or reviewer recognition programs

Maintaining confidentiality ensures a fair, responsible, and trustworthy peer review process for all members of the scientific community.

4. Conflicts of Interest

To ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers must conduct evaluations free from personal, professional, or financial influence. Reviewers are responsible for recognizing and declaring any conflict of interest (COI) that could compromise, or appear to compromise, their objectivity.

a. When Reviewers Must Decline a Review

Reviewers should immediately decline the invitation if any of the following apply:

• Personal relationships with the authors:
  Includes family ties, close friendships, disputes, or any relationship that could affect impartial judgment.
• Current or recent collaboration:
  Co-authorship, joint grants, shared datasets, or ongoing projects within the last three years.
• Employment at the same institution:
  Current institutional affiliation or recent employment in the same department, laboratory, or research group.
• Financial or commercial interests related to the work:
  Investments, consulting fees, patents, company affiliations, or any financial gain that could be influenced by the study’s results.
• Strong academic or political biases:
  Pre-existing opinions or advocacy positions that could skew the review, including being a strong proponent or critic of a particular hypothesis, method, or author group.
• Potential competitive advantage:
  Situations where the reviewer works on similar research and could benefit professionally from early access to the manuscript’s data or ideas.

b. Seek Clarification

If a reviewer is uncertain whether a situation constitutes a conflict of interest, they should contact the handling editor before accepting the assignment. The editorial office will provide guidance or reassign the manuscript if needed.

Maintaining transparency in conflicts of interest protects both the reviewer’s credibility and the integrity of the journal’s editorial process.

5. Review Timeline

Timely peer review is essential to maintaining an efficient publication process for authors and ensuring that research findings are communicated without unnecessary delay. Global Virology Reports (GVR) relies on reviewers to adhere to the established timelines or communicate promptly if adjustments are needed.

b. Standard Review Expectations

• Response to Review Invitation: within 3–5 days
  Reviewers should promptly confirm whether they can undertake the review. A timely response allows the editorial office to identify suitable reviewers without delaying the manuscript’s progress.
• Submission of Full Review Report: within 14–21 days
  Once the invitation is accepted, reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation and submit a detailed, constructive review within the standard two- to three-week timeframe. 

c. Requesting Additional Time

If a reviewer anticipates difficulty meeting the deadline due to workload, unforeseen circumstances, or complexity of the manuscript, they must notify the editorial office as soon as possible.
Extensions may be granted when reasonable, provided that communication is made early.

d. Why Timeliness Matters

GVR is committed to fair and efficient editorial handling. Delays in the peer review process can impact:

• Authors awaiting decisions for career progression, grant submissions, or thesis completion
• The timely dissemination of important scientific findings
• The overall quality and credibility of the journal’s publication workflow

By adhering to the established timelines, reviewers play a vital role in supporting authors and maintaining GVR’s high publication standards.

6. How to Conduct the Review

GVR asks reviewers to provide a thorough, balanced, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. The review should evaluate the scientific quality, clarity, rigor, and ethical integrity of the work. Below are the key elements reviewers should examine when preparing their report.

a. Significance & Novelty

Reviewers should assess the overall contribution of the manuscript to the field of virology:

• Advancement of knowledge: Does the study meaningfully enhance current understanding of viral pathogenesis, diagnostics, therapeutics, epidemiology, or related areas?
• Relevance: Is the research question important and timely within the current scientific landscape?
• Novelty: Does the work provide new insights, methods, or datasets, or address a gap in the existing literature?
• Impact: Could the findings influence future research, clinical practice, or public health policy?

A high-quality manuscript should offer clear and identifiable value to the broader virology community.

b. Methodological Rigor

Scientific robustness is essential. Reviewers should examine whether:

• Study design is appropriate for the research question and scientifically sound.
• Methods are sufficiently detailed to allow reproducibility and demonstrate adherence to established standards.
• Sample sizes are adequate and justified, with clear power considerations when relevant.
• Controls are properly selected and described.
• Statistical analyses are valid, correctly applied, and clearly reported, including confidence intervals, p-values, and effect sizes where applicable.
• Limitations are acknowledged and addressed.

Methodological weaknesses should be clearly identified and contextualized within the review.

c. Ethical Compliance

Reviewers should verify that appropriate ethical standards have been met:

• Human research: Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval numbers must be provided, and informed consent should be explicitly stated for clinical studies or case reports.
• Animal research: Confirmation of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval and compliance with ARRIVE or national guidelines is required.
• Biosafety: Work involving hazardous viruses or recombinant materials must demonstrate compliance with relevant biosafety levels (e.g., BSL-2, BSL-3, BSL-4).
• Ethical reporting: Any concerns about misconduct, patient confidentiality, or incomplete disclosure should be flagged confidentially to the editor.

Ethical red flags are grounds for serious concern and must be communicated promptly.

d. Results Presentation

Reviewers should assess the clarity and accuracy of the results:

• Figures and tables: Should be clear, logically organized, properly labeled, and of acceptable quality.
• Image integrity: No inappropriate image manipulation, duplication, or selective presentation.
• Data interpretation: The authors’ conclusions must be supported by the results presented.
• Internal consistency: Text, figures, and supplementary materials should align without contradictions.
• Transparency: Raw data availability, where expected, should be noted.

If results appear incomplete, unclear, or questionable, reviewers should indicate this in their report.

e. Discussion

The Discussion section should be evaluated for depth, balance, and scientific integrity:

• Interpretation: Are the conclusions reasonable and supported by the data?
• Contextualization: Do the authors thoughtfully compare their findings with existing literature?
• Objectivity: Does the discussion acknowledge limitations without overstatement or speculation?
• Contribution: Does the discussion articulate the significance and potential impact of the findings?

Overgeneralization, selective citation, or unsupported claims should be flagged.

f. Writing Quality

Clear communication is essential for scientific integrity:

• Clarity and coherence: The manuscript should be logically organized and easy to follow.
• Conciseness: Excessive repetition or unnecessary details should be avoided.
• Grammar and syntax: While reviewers are not expected to copy-edit, critical language issues that impede clarity should be noted.
• Referencing: Citations should be accurate, current, properly formatted, and relevant.

Manuscripts with major language issues may require revision before scientific review can proceed.Top of FormBottom of Form

7. Reviewer Recommendation Categories

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers are asked to select one of the standard recommendation categories. These recommendations help guide the editors but do not constitute the final decision, as the editorial team considers all reviewer reports, journal policies, and manuscript priorities.

a. Accept

This recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript:

• Is scientifically sound and methodologically robust
• Meets all ethical standards
• Is clearly written and well structured
• Requires no substantive revisions before publication

Only manuscripts that fully meet GVR’s quality criteria without requiring further modifications should receive this recommendation.

b. Minor Revision

Suitable when the manuscript is fundamentally strong but needs modest improvements. These may include:

• Clarifying specific sections of the text
• Minor adjustments to figures/tables
• Strengthening discussion points
• Correcting small methodological or analytical details
• Improving grammar, formatting, or reference accuracy

Minor Revision indicates that the scientific foundation of the work is solid and that revisions are achievable within a short period.

c. Major Revision

Recommended when the manuscript has potential but requires substantial improvements before it can be considered for publication. Reasons may include:

• Need for additional or more appropriate experiments
• Insufficient methodological detail
• Inadequate or incorrect data analysis
• Issues with interpretation or overstatement of results
• Major restructuring or rewriting of the manuscript
• Significant concerns about clarity, coherence, or completeness

A Major Revision does not imply rejection but indicates that the manuscript must undergo significant work to meet the journal’s standards.

d. Reject

A rejection is appropriate when one or more of the following apply:

• Critical methodological flaws that cannot be corrected
• Unreliable, incomplete, or irreproducible data
• Serious ethical concerns, including misconduct, lack of approvals, or privacy breaches
• Lack of novelty or scientific contribution
• Research question or scope does not align with the journal’s mission
• Poorly written manuscripts that obscure the science beyond reasonable revision

Rejecting a manuscript is a quality-protection measure that maintains the integrity of the scholarly record.

Important Note

Reviewers provide valuable recommendations, but the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, who evaluates all reviews, considers journal standards, and determines the most appropriate editorial action.

8. Structure of a Good Review Report

A high-quality peer review is organized, constructive, and clearly communicates the reviewer’s assessment. To ensure consistency and fairness, Global Virology Reports recommends that reviewers structure their reports using the following four components:

a. Summary of the Manuscript

Begin with a brief, neutral summary of the manuscript. This section demonstrates that you have understood the study and helps the editors ensure that the review is grounded in an accurate interpretation of the work.

A strong summary should:

• Describe the study’s main objective or research question
• Outline the methods used
• Highlight key findings
• Reflect the stated conclusions without critique

This section should be factual and concise, not evaluative.

b. General Comments

Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript. This is where reviewers identify the paper’s strengths, weaknesses, and scientific value.

General comments may address:

• Significance and contribution to the field of virology
• Originality and relevance to the journal’s scope
• Scientific rigor and conceptual soundness
• Clarity and coherence of writing and presentation
• Overall ethical and methodological quality

General comments set the tone for the rest of the evaluation and help the authors understand the broader context of the feedback.

c. Specific Comments — Major Issues

This section contains detailed, numbered comments addressing substantive issues that require revision. Major comments should focus on elements that materially affect the validity, reliability, or interpretation of the study.

Typical major issues include:

• Study design concerns, including inappropriate methodology or lack of controls
• Interpretation problems, such as unsupported conclusions or overstatement
• Statistical errors or insufficient description of analytical methods
• Missing or unclear data, including incomplete figures, tables, or supplementary files
• Ethical issues, including missing IRB/IACUC approvals, lack of consent statements, or questionable research practices
• Inconsistencies, contradictions, or unclear logic in the manuscript

Major comments should be constructive, actionable, and prioritized in a logical order.

d. Specific Comments — Minor Issues

Minor comments address issues that do not affect the scientific integrity of the study but would improve clarity, readability, or presentation.

These may include:

• Typographical errors
• Grammatical issues
• Formatting inconsistencies
• Minor clarifications of wording or phrasing
• Reference formatting or missing citations
• Improvements to figure or table labeling

Minor comments should be specific and presented in a line-by-line or section-based format where appropriate.

Professional Conduct

All feedback must adhere to the following principles:

• Respectful and constructive tone
• Focus on the science, not the authors
• Clear, actionable suggestions
• Avoidance of dismissive or harsh language

Reviewers should aim to support authors in strengthening their work while upholding scientific integrity.

9. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are entrusted with protecting the integrity of the scientific record. At Global Virology Reports (GVR), reviewers are expected to uphold the highest ethical and professional standards throughout the review process. The following obligations ensure fairness, scientific rigor, and responsible editorial conduct.

a. Plagiarism and Redundancy

Reviewers play a crucial role in identifying potential breaches of publication ethics. If, during the course of the review, a reviewer notices any of the following:

• Plagiarism, including copied text, ideas, or data without proper attribution
• Duplicate or redundant publication, such as a manuscript that substantially overlaps with previously published work by the same authors
• Suspected image reuse, including identical microscopy images, blots, or figures appearing in multiple publications
• Signs of inappropriate image manipulation, such as duplication, splicing, or enhancement that alters scientific meaning
• Recycling of data or figures without disclosure

the reviewer must not contact the authors directly. Instead, they should notify the handling editor or the editorial office privately and confidentially. The editor will then initiate appropriate checks following COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

Reviewers should present concerns objectively, citing specific sections or figure numbers when possible.

b. Research Misconduct

Reviewers must also be vigilant for cases of potential research misconduct. Examples may include:

• Fabricated data (invented results with no underlying research)
• Falsified data (manipulated or selectively reported results)
• Improper statistical methods that artificially enhance significance
• Ethical non-compliance, such as missing IRB/IACUC approval or lack of informed consent
• Unreported conflicts of interest that may bias the study
• Unsafe or unethical handling of viruses, animals, or human samples

If a reviewer suspects any form of misconduct, they must:

• Report their concerns only to the editor
• Provide specific evidence or indications if available
• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the allegation

The editorial office will then evaluate the concerns and, if necessary, refer the case to the authors’ institutions or ethical oversight bodies.

Reviewers should remember that raising concerns does not imply misconduct; it simply initiates a responsible and confidential investigation.Top of FormBottom of Form

10. Anonymity

Global Virology Reports (GVR) follows a double-blind peer review model to promote fairness, reduce bias, and ensure an equitable evaluation process. Under this system, neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities throughout the review process.

To preserve this anonymity, reviewers must adhere to the following guidelines:

a. Maintaining Reviewer Anonymity

Reviewers should take deliberate steps to avoid revealing their identities, either explicitly or indirectly. This includes:

• Avoiding any form of self-identification in the review report
• Do not refer to your own work as “my previous paper…”
• Instead use neutral phrasing such as “previous studies” or cite your work in third person.
• Not mentioning your institution, department, or research group
• Avoid comments like “In our laboratory at the University of X…”
• Such statements can compromise anonymity.
• Avoiding overly specific disclosures of expertise
• For instance, instead of writing: “As someone who specializes in adenovirus vector optimization…”
• Use: “Experts in this area would typically examine…”
• Ensuring that uploaded annotated documents do not contain author information
• Remove metadata from PDF or Word files before submission.
• Do not use tracked changes that reflect your identity.

b. Tone and Professionalism

To maintain the integrity of the double-blind process, reviewers should:

• Provide neutral, evidence-based remarks
• Avoid personal language or speculation about the authors
• Comment solely on the quality, rigor, and clarity of the manuscript

Maintaining anonymity protects both reviewers and authors, ensuring that evaluations are based strictly on scientific merit and not influenced by personal relationships, reputational considerations, or institutional affiliations.

11. Reviewer Recognition

At Global Virology Reports (GVR), we believe that peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. The time, expertise, and meticulous care our reviewers dedicate to this process are invaluable, and we are committed to ensuring your contribution is formally recognized and appreciated.

Your work as a reviewer does not go unnoticed. We have established several ways to acknowledge your vital role in our scholarly community:

a. Public Acknowledgment of Your Service
As a token of our gratitude, we publish an Annual Reviewer Acknowledgment List on our journal website. This public record honors the individuals whose voluntary efforts have been instrumental in maintaining the journal's high standards over the past year, celebrating your commitment to the advancement of virology.

b. Formal Certification for Your Portfolio
Upon request, we are pleased to provide you with a personalized Certificate of Reviewing. This formal document serves as a verifiable record of your service, which you can add to your professional portfolio or curriculum vitae to demonstrate your active engagement in the scholarly ecosystem.

c. Pathway to Editorial Leadership
Exceptional reviewers who consistently provide insightful, constructive, and timely reports are often invited to join our Editorial Board. We view the reviewer pool as the foundation for our journal's future leadership, and this is a primary pathway to a more influential role in shaping the direction of GVR.

d. Financial Recognition for Your Contributions

As a direct token of our appreciation for your expertise and time, GVR offers an immediate 20% discount on Article Processing Charges (APCs) for any manuscript on which you are the corresponding author. This benefit is our way of tangibly supporting your own research dissemination and thanking you for the critical role you play in sustaining the journal's quality. The discount is applicable for submissions within 12 months of completing a review for us.

By reviewing for GVR, you are not only safeguarding the quality of the scientific record but also investing in your own professional standing within the global virology community. We are deeply grateful for your partnership in this essential endeavor.

12. Declining a Review Invitation

We recognize that even experts must sometimes decline a review request, and doing so promptly is a professional courtesy that is greatly appreciated. It allows our editorial team to swiftly identify an alternative reviewer, ensuring a timely process for the authors.

You are strongly encouraged to decline an invitation in the following situations:

• Lack of Subject Expertise: If the manuscript falls outside your immediate area of specialized knowledge, preventing a thorough and authoritative assessment.
• Time Constraints: If you are unable to complete a comprehensive review within the requested timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks).
• Conflict of Interest (COI): If you have a personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors or their institution that could compromise, or be perceived as compromising, your objectivity.
• Lack of Qualifications: If you feel unqualified to provide a fair and constructive evaluation of the research methodology or core findings.

How to Decline: When declining through our online system, you will be prompted to provide a brief, optional reason. This information is invaluable as it helps us refine our reviewer matching process for future submissions.

A prompt declination is always preferable to a delayed or rushed review. Your professionalism in managing your availability directly contributes to the efficiency and integrity of the entire publication process.

13. Requesting Additional Expertise

We recognize that the interdisciplinary nature of virology means a manuscript may occasionally touch upon a highly specialized sub-field beyond your primary expertise. In such cases, your role as a reviewer is not to be the sole expert on every aspect, but to provide a robust evaluation within your knowledge and to help us identify the right expertise for a comprehensive assessment.

If you determine that a specific, critical component of the manuscript requires specialized knowledge you do not possess, we welcome your input.

Guidelines for Seeking Additional Expertise:

• Collaborative Review: You are welcome to consult with a junior colleague (e.g., a postdoctoral fellow or PhD student under your supervision) to gain insight into a specialized method or analysis. However, you must ensure the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained and that you remain solely responsible for the content and judgment of the final report.
• Suggesting Reviewers: If the topic requires an entirely separate expert opinion, please decline the review and, in your response to the editor, suggest one or two qualified alternative reviewers with their contact information. Please also briefly note the specific area of expertise they would provide (e.g., "For the structural bioinformatics analysis, I recommend Dr. Jane Smith").
• Editorial Protocol: Reviewers must not contact potential external reviewers directly. All invitations must be managed through the editorial office to prevent conflicts of interest and to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the blind peer-review process. The handling editor will make the final decision on inviting any suggested reviewers.

Your proactive guidance in these situations is invaluable and helps us ensure that every manuscript receives the most fair and knowledgeable evaluation possible.

14. Revising for Re-Review

When a manuscript you previously reviewed is returned to you for re-evaluation, your role is pivotal in assessing whether the authors have successfully addressed the concerns raised during the initial round of peer review. This stage is crucial for ensuring the final published work meets the journal's standards of quality and clarity.

Upon receiving a revised manuscript, please focus your evaluation on the following:

• Scrutinize the Author's Response: Begin by carefully reading the authors' point-by-point response to the reviewer comments (including your own and those of other reviewers). Assess whether their responses are satisfactory and demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues raised.
• Evaluate the Implementation: Examine the manuscript itself to determine if the actual revisions and any new data provided adequately address the specific points of criticism. The goal is to see if the core limitations have been resolved, not necessarily if every suggestion was followed exactly.
• Focus on the Changes: Your primary task is to review the new and altered material. You are not expected to re-review the entire manuscript from scratch unless the editor specifically requests it. Please direct your attention to the revised sections, new figures or tables, and any other modifications made by the authors.

Your expert judgment at this stage ensures that the revision process is meaningful and ultimately strengthens the scientific record. Please provide a clear, final recommendation to the editor (e.g., "Accept," "Further Minor Revision Required," or "Reject") based on your assessment of the revision's adequacy.

15. Communication Channels

To uphold the integrity, security, and fairness of the peer-review process, Global Virology Reports (GVR) maintains a strict policy that all communication must be channeled exclusively through the editorial office.

Reviewers are required to adhere to the following protocols:

• All Communication is Mediated: You must not contact the authors of the manuscript under any circumstances. All feedback, questions, and recommendations must be directed to the handling editor via the journal's submission system or official editorial email.
• Maintain Decision Confidentiality: The outcome of the review process and the details of the editorial decision are strictly confidential. You must not disclose your recommendation (e.g., accept, revise, reject) or share any details of the manuscript or other reviewers' comments with anyone outside the process, including colleagues, unless you have consulted them as part of a confidential collaborative review (as outlined in the "Requesting Additional Expertise" section).
• Use Official Channels Only: Please conduct all correspondence using the journal's designated platforms—the online submission portal or the official GVR editorial email address. This ensures a secure, documented, and efficient workflow.

Adherence to these protocols is essential for protecting author confidentiality, preventing potential conflicts of interest, and preserving the impartiality that is the foundation of trusted scholarly publishing. We thank you for your cooperation in maintaining these high standards.

16. A Note of Gratitude

The editorial team at Global Virology Reports (GVR) extends its sincere gratitude for your willingness to share your time and expertise. Peer review is an essential, collaborative endeavor, and your careful, critical evaluation is the cornerstone of the scholarly publishing process.

Your contribution is invaluable. It not only guides our editorial decisions but also directly enhances the quality, clarity, and integrity of the research we publish. By dedicating your efforts to this process, you play an active role in advancing the field of virology and upholding the highest scientific standards for the entire community.

Thank you for your indispensable partnership in this critical mission.