Editor Resources
Tools and guidance for editors at Journal of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy (JALR).
Practical resources for efficient editorial work
JALR provides editors with structured resources to support fair peer review, consistent decisions, and ethical oversight. The editorial office is available for support throughout the process. Resources are updated regularly.
Editorial policies
Clear policy documents covering ethics, peer review, and decision standards.
Reviewer database
Access to qualified reviewers with expertise in Alzheimer's research.
Decision templates
Standardized decision letters to streamline communication with authors.
Ethics checklists
Checklists for consent, conflicts of interest, and data availability.
Editors receive guidance on screening submissions, selecting reviewers, managing revisions, and handling appeals. The editorial office can assist with complex cases or ethical concerns quickly and reliably.
New editors receive onboarding guidance and can request training on the submission platform, decision workflows, and reviewer management. Early scope checks are encouraged to avoid delays.
- Use structured criteria when evaluating reviewer comments.
- Encourage constructive, respectful feedback from reviewers.
- Document conflicts of interest and recuse when necessary.
- Ensure data availability statements are present and clear.
When selecting reviewers, aim for balanced expertise and geographic diversity to reflect the global Alzheimer's research community.
When ethical questions arise, editors can consult the editorial office for guidance on consent, data privacy, or suspected misconduct. JALR provides escalation pathways to ensure concerns are addressed consistently.
Editors may flag reviewers who provide consistently late or low quality reviews. The editorial office maintains a reviewer performance log to support timely, high quality peer review.
Editors are encouraged to share feedback on policy updates, reviewer guidelines, and journal workflows. Continuous improvement helps JALR maintain editorial excellence.
Editors can request standardized language for common decisions, such as major revision, minor revision, or rejection. These templates help ensure clarity and consistency across the journal. Custom language can be provided for sensitive cases.
When reviews conflict, editors can request an additional reviewer or consult with senior editors for guidance. Decision support tools help summarize reviewer feedback and highlight key concerns.
Editors can set preferred review timelines and request automated reminders. Clear timelines help reviewers stay on track and reduce delays for authors as needed.
Need editorial support?
Email [email protected] to access editor resources or request assistance. We respond quickly.
