Editors Guidelines

These guidelines outline the editorial expectations for Journal of Aging Research And Healthcare (JARH). Editors play a critical role in ensuring rigorous peer review and maintaining the journal focus on aging science, geriatrics, and care systems.

Journal at a glance

ISSN: 2474-7785 | DOI prefix: 10.14302/issn.2474-7785 | License: CC BY 4.0 | Open access publishing.

Editorial mission

Editors uphold the scientific and ethical standards of JARH by ensuring submissions align with the full aging research spectrum. This includes biological mechanisms of aging, geriatric clinical care, cognitive and neurodegenerative aging, rehabilitation, mental health, caregiving, and policy relevant aging systems.

Editorial decisions should reinforce the journal identity as a unified geroscience and geriatrics outlet that prioritizes older adult outcomes and real world impact.

Scope screening responsibilities

Editors perform initial screening to confirm scope fit and readiness for peer review. Strong submissions demonstrate direct relevance to aging outcomes and provide evidence that informs clinical care or aging systems. Screen for explicit aging outcomes and ensure the manuscript frames its contribution to geriatric practice or care systems.

• Confirm relevance to older adult health, function, or quality of life.
• Prioritize manuscripts that integrate biology, clinical care, behavioral science, or policy.
• Decline submissions that lack aging relevance or focus exclusively on unrelated populations.
• Ensure methods and outcomes align with the claims presented.

Desk decisions and triage

Desk decisions should be made when a manuscript is outside scope, lacks methodological rigor, or does not meet ethical requirements. Provide clear rationale to help authors understand the decision.

Timely desk screening preserves reviewer resources and maintains consistent journal standards.

Reviewer selection and management

Editors select reviewers with subject matter expertise aligned to the manuscript. Choose reviewers with balanced perspectives across geroscience, geriatrics, and aging systems when appropriate. Aim for balanced geographic and methodological coverage and avoid overusing the same reviewers across cycles.

• Invite at least two independent reviewers per manuscript.
• Avoid conflicts of interest and confirm reviewer independence.
• Provide reviewers with clear guidance on scope and expected outcomes.
• Monitor reviewer timelines and send reminders when needed.

Communication with reviewers

Maintain professional and concise communication with reviewers. Confirm expectations, deadlines, and the importance of confidentiality. Thank reviewers for timely, constructive evaluations.

If reviewer comments are unclear or inconsistent, request clarification before issuing a decision.

Decision making criteria

Editorial decisions should be based on scientific rigor, relevance to aging outcomes, and clarity of reporting. Consider the balance between novelty, methodological strength, and real world implications. Confirm that conclusions are supported by the data and that limitations are stated transparently.

• Scientific quality and appropriateness of methods.
• Strength of evidence for older adult or caregiver outcomes.
• Relevance to geroscience, geriatrics, or aging care systems.
• Ethical compliance and transparency of disclosures.
• Contribution to global aging knowledge or policy relevance.

Decision categories

Use consistent decision categories to maintain transparency with authors. Typical decisions include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

• Minor revision: Limited changes that do not alter the main conclusions.
• Major revision: Substantial changes to methods, analysis, or interpretation.
• Reject: Manuscripts with limited aging relevance or insufficient rigor.

Quality checklist

Editors should confirm that manuscripts address the essential quality indicators for aging research. This checklist helps maintain consistency across editorial decisions.

• Clear description of the older adult population and setting.
• Validated measures and transparent analytic approach.
• Ethics approvals and disclosure statements included.
• Conclusions aligned with reported data and limitations.

Editorial performance metrics

Editors are encouraged to monitor review timelines and decision consistency. Efficient handling supports author trust and helps maintain the journal's publication schedule. Tracking turnaround times by article type helps identify bottlenecks and staffing needs.

If delays occur, communicate with the editorial office so additional support or reviewer outreach can be arranged. Consistent metrics help identify bottlenecks and improve workflow over time.

Ethics, integrity, and transparency

Editors must ensure that submissions comply with ethical standards, including informed consent, institutional review approval, and conflict of interest disclosure. Suspected misconduct should be escalated to the editorial office.

• Verify ethics approvals for human or animal research.
• Ensure data availability statements are present.
• Confirm funding and conflict of interest disclosures.
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Author communication

Editors should provide clear, constructive feedback to authors. Decision letters should summarize the key reasons for acceptance, revision, or rejection and guide authors on next steps.

When revisions are requested, ensure that reviewer feedback is consolidated into an actionable set of requirements and that deadlines are clearly stated.

Special issues and thematic collections

Editors may contribute to special issues that highlight emerging themes in aging research or healthcare systems. Proposals should align with JARH scope and include clear objectives, timelines, and reviewer coverage.

• Define a focused aging theme with strong interdisciplinary relevance.
• Invite guest editors with complementary expertise.
• Ensure consistent peer review standards across the collection.

Timelines and responsiveness

Timely editorial decisions support author confidence and maintain journal momentum. Please respond promptly to new assignments and communicate delays to the editorial office.

When workload or conflicts prevent timely handling, notify the editorial office so manuscripts can be reassigned.

Handling revisions

Editors should verify that revision responses address each reviewer comment and that changes are clearly marked. If key concerns remain unresolved, request additional revisions or decline the manuscript. Request a detailed response letter and ensure key methodological changes are clearly documented.

• Check that authors provide point by point responses.
• Ensure revised results remain consistent with conclusions.
• Confirm that scope fit is maintained after revisions.

Appeals and disputes

Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe a factual error occurred. Appeals should be handled fairly and transparently, with a focus on scientific evidence.

When appropriate, a second editor may review the appeal or request an additional review to resolve disputes.

Equity and inclusive publishing

Aging research spans diverse populations and care systems. Editors should encourage inclusive reporting, equitable representation, and respectful language when describing older adults.

Consider whether studies address social determinants, health system access, and disparities that affect older adult outcomes.

Data integrity and research misconduct

Editors must be alert to potential misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data manipulation. If concerns arise, inform the editorial office and follow established investigation procedures.

Maintain confidentiality throughout any investigation and document all communications related to integrity issues.

Editorial board engagement

Editors are encouraged to promote high quality submissions, recommend reviewers, and contribute to special issues. Sharing insights about emerging trends in aging research helps keep the journal responsive to the field.

Please keep your expertise profile updated and notify the editorial office of changes to affiliation or availability.

Confidentiality and data security

All manuscripts and reviewer communications are confidential. Editors should avoid sharing submissions outside the review process and should ensure that files are stored securely.

Do not use unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage, and disclose any potential conflicts promptly.

Editor onboarding and support

New editors receive guidance on journal scope, decision criteria, and workflow tools. If additional training is needed, the editorial office can provide examples of decision letters and review templates. Periodic calibration discussions help maintain consistent decisions across the editorial board.

Please reach out to the editorial office if you need assistance with complex cases or appeals. Ongoing feedback from editors helps refine policies and improve author experience.

Need editorial support?

The editorial office is available to assist with reviewer selection, policy questions, or manuscript management.