Romanian Journal of Infectious Diseases | Vol. 27, No. 2, Year 2024
ISSN 1454-3389  |  e-ISSN 2069-6051
ISSN-L 1454-3389
DOI: 10.37897/RJID


DOI - Crossref
Similarity Check by iThenticate, worldwide No 1 professional plagiarism checking system
NLM Catalog
Ebsco Host - Medline
Google Academic
Semantic Scholar


National Awards “Science and Research”

NEW! RJID has announced the annually National Award for "Science and Research" for the best scientific articles published throughout the year in the official journal.

ICMJE- Recommendations

Read the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals.

Promoting Global Health

The published medical research literature is a global public good. Medical journal editors have a social responsibility to promote global health by publishing, whenever possible, research that furthers health worldwide.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to RJIDRomanian Journal of Infectious Diseases are reviewed by at least two qualified experts in the field. Reviewers are kindly asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the editor on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions (minor or major) or should be rejected. As reviewer, when you receive an invitation to evaluate a manuscript from RJID, before accepting or declining, please consider the following issues:

  1. Does the article belong to your field of research and expertise?
  2. Do you find yourself in any potential conflict of interest?
  3. Do you have time to review the manuscript? Please evaluate if you have enough time to meet the deadline.

If you decline the invitation, it would be very helpful for us if you could suggest alternative reviewers whose expertise matches the theme of the article.

Confidential. Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. Moreover, they should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in reports which are submitted in.

As RJID aims to provide an efficient publishing service to authors and to the scientific community, we kindly ask reviewers to provide review reports in a timely manner and to follow our guidelines. The review reports should contain an evaluation sheet and a brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions, followed by general comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for authors to be able to respond to them (referring to line numbers, tables or figures). All those recommended aspects are to be presented in Recommendation for authors (Appendix 1) [download].

For a high quality and efficient peer-review process of the manuscript, please research, evaluate and rate all the aspects presented in Evaluation sheet and recommendation for editor (Appendix 2) [download].

After evaluation, please give one of the following recommendations regarding the publication of the manuscript:

  1. Accept it as it is. The manuscript makes a significant and unique contribution to current knowledge, the research design and the results are appropriate, clearly presented, and the described methodology is presented with sufficient details to be verifiable. The English language is appropriate and understandable.
  2. Accept after minor revisions. The manuscript could be acceptable for publication, but could either benefit from specific changes to improve overall quality of presentation or corrections regarding some minor methodological errors, or the English language must be verified by a proficient speaker. Reviewers should mention areas where the manuscript needs improvement, with accuracy and precision.
  3. Reconsider after major revisions. The article has some merit, but it fails to meet all requirements for publication as a scientific paper. The manuscript needs a serious improvement in order for it to be accepted. Reviewers should specifically mention areas where the manuscript needs improvement and, if possible, provide references to substantiate the comments made.
  4. The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, has inadequate research design, does not have enough experimental data to draw conclusions or data doesn’t sound scientific enough nor comprehensive enough, or the conclusions are not supported by the results. The manuscript was not prepared and presented in accordance to guide for authors.