Reviewer Guidelines

These guidelines help reviewers evaluate submissions to Journal of Aging Research And Healthcare (JARH). Reviews should assess scientific rigor, aging relevance, and the potential to improve outcomes for older adults.

Journal at a glance

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

Reviewer role

Reviewers ensure that JARH publishes rigorous, ethical, and relevant aging research. Your feedback helps authors strengthen methods, clarify outcomes, and connect findings to older adult care and policy. Identify scope fit issues and ethical concerns early to protect reviewer time and author effort.

Reviews should be objective, respectful, and focused on the manuscript content rather than the authors or institutions.

Scope fit considerations

JARH covers geroscience, geriatrics, cognitive aging, mental health, rehabilitation, caregiving, and aging care systems. Reviewers should confirm that each submission clearly addresses older adult outcomes or aging system impacts. Look for explicit statements of the aging population, care setting, and measurable outcomes.

• Does the manuscript focus on aging or older adult populations?
• Are outcomes relevant to geriatric care, cognition, or functional health?
• Does the work advance understanding of aging mechanisms or care systems?
• Is there policy, behavioral, or social determinant relevance?

Equity and population relevance

Aging outcomes are shaped by social determinants and care access. Reviewers should consider whether populations are described clearly and whether findings are generalizable or limited by context.

Flag missing demographic detail, unclear population definitions, or lack of equity considerations when these elements are central to the study claims.

Evaluation criteria

Assess each manuscript based on scientific rigor, relevance, and clarity. Provide actionable feedback that helps authors improve quality and impact. Assess whether conclusions align with data and acknowledged limitations.

• Sound study design, appropriate sample selection, and validated measures.
• Clear reporting of methods, analysis, and limitations.
• Robust results with appropriate statistics and transparency.
• Alignment of conclusions with evidence presented.
• Clinical, behavioral, or policy relevance for aging outcomes.

Writing constructive reviews

A strong review balances critique with practical guidance. Focus on the clarity of aging outcomes, the adequacy of methods, and the strength of evidence supporting conclusions. Separate major methodological concerns from presentation or formatting issues.

• Start with a brief summary of the manuscript contribution.
• List major concerns that affect validity or interpretation.
• Provide minor comments that improve clarity or presentation.
• Suggest specific revisions rather than general criticisms.

Assessing methods and statistics

Reviewers should evaluate whether study design and analysis are appropriate for the research question and aging population. Comment on sample size, measurement validity, and the alignment of outcomes with conclusions. Note if validated scales or geriatric assessments are missing.

• Check whether measures are validated for older adults.
• Confirm that statistical methods match the study design.
• Assess whether limitations are acknowledged and addressed.

Data availability and reproducibility

Check whether authors provide data availability statements and sufficient methodological detail to support replication. Encourage transparency in reporting instruments, protocols, and analytic decisions. Encourage authors to provide code or analytic scripts when possible.

When data sharing is limited, verify that authors explain the limitation and describe how findings were validated.

Review structure

We recommend organizing your review with a brief summary, major comments, and minor comments. This structure helps authors prioritize revisions.

• Summary: Concise overview of the manuscript and its contribution.
• Major comments: Methodological concerns, missing evidence, or scope issues.
• Minor comments: Clarity, formatting, or reporting improvements.

Assessing the literature context

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript appropriately situates findings within existing aging research. Check that key studies are cited and that claims about novelty are supported.

If important literature is missing, recommend specific references that strengthen the context and interpretation.

Feasibility and implementation relevance

For clinical or systems research, consider whether the intervention or model is feasible in real world aging care settings. Flag gaps in implementation details or scalability.

Highlight strengths that make the work actionable for clinicians, caregivers, or policymakers.

Policy and systems relevance

When manuscripts include policy or systems implications, assess whether conclusions are supported by evidence and whether the recommendations are realistic for aging care environments.

Suggest ways to clarify policy relevance or identify limitations that affect generalizability.

Recommendation guidance

When submitting a recommendation, base your decision on methodological rigor, aging relevance, and the strength of the evidence. If you recommend rejection, provide clear reasons that editors can communicate to authors.

If you recommend revision, specify which changes are essential for acceptance and which are optional improvements.

Rating the manuscript

Consider scoring the manuscript internally on originality, methodological quality, and aging relevance. This helps you provide consistent recommendations and aligns comments with the final decision.

If the manuscript is strong but requires clarity improvements, indicate that the science is sound while listing specific edits needed.

Reviewing revised manuscripts

When reviewing revisions, focus on whether authors addressed major concerns and improved clarity. Confirm that changes are reflected in results, interpretation, and conclusions.

If key issues remain unresolved, indicate which revisions are still required for acceptance.

Ethics and integrity

Reviewers should flag ethical concerns, including missing consent, unclear approvals, or potential data issues. If misconduct is suspected, notify the editor confidentially.

• Verify that ethics approvals and consent statements are present.
• Check for conflicts of interest or undisclosed funding.
• Identify potential plagiarism or duplicate publication.

Respectful language and bias

Reviewers should encourage respectful, person centered language when referring to older adults and caregivers. Flag wording that is stigmatizing or inconsistent with current standards in aging research.

Consider whether the manuscript addresses potential bias in sampling, measurement, or interpretation, especially for marginalized populations.

Confidentiality and conflicts of interest

Manuscripts are confidential. Do not share content or use unpublished data for personal advantage. Declare conflicts of interest and decline reviews when necessary.

Examples include collaborations with authors, direct competition, or financial interests in the study outcomes.

Confidential comments to the editor

Use confidential comments to the editor for concerns about ethics, conflicts, or scope that should not be shared with authors. Keep author facing comments focused on constructive improvements.

If you detect possible misconduct or data issues, describe the concern clearly so editors can determine next steps.

Timelines and responsiveness

Reviews are typically expected within 7 to 14 days. If you cannot meet the deadline, inform the editor promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned. Let editors know early if additional time is needed.

Timely reviews improve author experience and help JARH maintain reliable decision timelines.

Recognition and reviewer benefits

JARH values reviewer contributions. Reviewers may receive recognition, certificates, or invitations to participate in special issues depending on performance and availability.

To update your reviewer profile or expertise, contact the editorial office.

Support for early career reviewers

Early career reviewers are welcome and encouraged to provide thoughtful, evidence based feedback. If you are reviewing for the first time, focus on clarity, aging relevance, and the strength of the evidence.

The editorial office can provide guidance or examples of effective review structure upon request. Mentorship from senior reviewers is encouraged when appropriate.

Interdisciplinary submissions

Many aging studies integrate biology, clinical care, behavioral science, and policy. When reviewing interdisciplinary manuscripts, focus on whether the aging relevance is clear and whether the methods are appropriate for the combined approach.

If parts of the manuscript fall outside your expertise, note this in confidential comments to the editor. This helps editors balance feedback across disciplines.

Reviewer support

Contact the editorial office for review guidance, scope clarification, or technical questions.