Editorial Standards

Content Selection Criteria

IDARI publishes content at the intersection of antimicrobial pharmacology, clinical practice guidance, and patient education. Topics are selected based on three primary criteria: clinical significance (frequency of relevant prescribing decisions in US outpatient practice), evidence base maturity (sufficient published literature to support evidence synthesis), and audience need (demonstrated information gap in accessible, non-paywalled sources).

Topic proposals originate from IDARI's research staff or are submitted externally. All proposals undergo internal triage review to assess alignment with the criteria above and the institute's current research priorities. Commercial considerations — including advertiser preferences, sponsored content arrangements, or manufacturer requests — play no role in topic selection. See the Conflict of Interest Policy for disclosure requirements governing this process.

Acceptable Sources and Citation Standards

All clinical claims in IDARI publications must be supported by one or more of the following source categories, in descending order of evidentiary weight:

1. 1 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals (Cochrane Library, JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Pharmacotherapy, etc.)
2. 2 Randomized controlled trial data published in peer-reviewed journals
3. 3 Current FDA-approved prescribing information (package inserts), accessible via DailyMed
4. 4 IDSA, CDC, WHO, and other major specialty society clinical practice guidelines
5. 5 Prospective cohort and observational studies in indexed journals, used with explicit acknowledgment of their study design limitations
6. 6 Expert consensus statements, used only when higher-tier evidence is unavailable

In-text citation of specific studies uses author–year format where appropriate. FDA drug labeling and guideline documents are cited by issuing organization and document date. IDARI does not publish content whose central clinical claims rest exclusively on preclinical or animal study data without explicit labeling of that limitation.

Peer Review Workflow

Peer reviewers are identified based on relevant board certification and clinical expertise. Reviewer identities are disclosed on published content in accordance with IDARI's transparency standards. Reviewers receive no compensation for their service; participation is voluntary and independent.

Content Update and Review Schedule

Medical evidence evolves. Published content is assigned a review date at the time of publication, typically 12 months from the original publication date. Content is flagged for unscheduled review in the event of:

• FDA safety communication, labeling update, or drug approval affecting the content subject matter
• Updated IDSA or CDC clinical practice guideline release
• Publication of high-impact clinical trial data materially altering the evidence base
• Reader-submitted factual correction accepted through our editorial review process

Updated content displays both the original publication date and the most recent review date. Substantive updates are summarized in a revision note appended to the article. Minor editorial corrections (typos, formatting, broken links) are made without formal revision notation.

Corrections and Retractions

IDARI is committed to prompt correction of factual errors. Readers who identify potential inaccuracies are encouraged to submit correction requests to [email protected]. All submissions are reviewed within 10 business days. Confirmed errors that materially affect clinical meaning are corrected with a timestamped correction notice appended to the article. In cases of fundamental error affecting the reliability of an entire article, the content is retracted and replaced with a retraction notice. No content is silently deleted or amended without notation.