All submissions to Trends in Immunotherapy undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review, designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and the highest standards of scientific quality. The editorial process is structured into four distinct stages: Initial Screening, Editorial Evaluation, External Peer Review, and Final Decision.

1. Initial Screening (Technical Check)
Upon submission, the editorial staff performs a preliminary review to confirm that the manuscript meets basic requirements for further processing. This includes:

• Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines;
• Completeness of required sections (e.g., abstract, references, figures);
• Ethical statements and conflict of interest disclosures;
• Plagiarism check using iThenticate;
• Language quality sufficient for academic review.

Only manuscripts passing this stage proceed to academic assessment.

2. Editorial Evaluation (Academic Pre-Check)
A senior academic editor—such as the Editor-in-Chief, a designated Editorial Board Member, or a Collection Editor—is invited to perform an initial academic assessment. At this stage, the editor evaluates:

• The manuscript’s relevance to the scope of the journal or topical collection;
• Scientific soundness of the research design and methodology;
• Appropriateness and accuracy of references;
• Novelty and potential contribution to the field.

Based on this assessment, the editor may:

• Reject the manuscript without external review;
• Request clarifications or revisions prior to review;
• Advance the manuscript to external peer review and recommend reviewers.

To uphold editorial independence, editors are not involved in decisions related to their own submissions.

3. External Peer Review (Double-Blind Review)
Manuscripts that pass editorial evaluation enter the double-blind peer review process, where both the authors' and reviewers’ identities are concealed. At least two qualified independent reviewers are invited based on the following criteria:

• Demonstrated expertise and academic qualifications (typically PhD or equivalent);
• A strong publication record in the manuscript’s field;
• No recent collaboration or institutional affiliation with the authors;
• No conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Assess the originality, rigor, clarity, and significance of the research;
• Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback;
• Adhere to ethical standards and confidentiality.

Reviewers are typically given 2 weeks to submit their reports. Extensions can be granted upon request. In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be consulted.

4. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on each manuscript, taking into account at least two independent reviewer reports. The editorial staff will then inform the authors of the decision, adding comments to the authors to make improvements in their research or paper.

• Accept Submission (no revisions required): The manuscript proceeds directly to the production stage.
• Revisions Required (minor revisions): Authors are given up to 1-2 weeks to revise and resubmit their manuscript.
• Resubmit for Review (major revisions): Authors are allowed up to 2-4 weeks to revise and resubmit their manuscript for a second round of peer review.
• Reject Submission: Authors will be notified, the manuscript will be archived, and the peer review process will be concluded.

5. Production and Publication

Accepted papers proceed through copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading before publication. Authors are required to collaborate with the editorial office during this stage to ensure accuracy in language and presentation. After reviewing and approving the final PDF, the article will be published with a registered DOI and made immediately accessible online.