Editors Guidelines
Editorial guidance for Journal of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy (JALR) editors and section leads.
Support rigorous, fair, and timely review
Editors play a central role in maintaining quality and integrity at JALR. These guidelines outline expectations for editorial assessment, reviewer selection, and decision making. Your leadership shapes the journal, community, and overall impact.
- Assess submissions for scope fit, ethical compliance, and scientific merit.
- Select qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
- Provide clear decision letters with actionable feedback for authors.
- Monitor review timelines and follow up on late reviews.
- Escalate ethical concerns to the editorial office promptly.
Editors should ensure that manuscripts include ethics approvals, conflict of interest disclosures, and data availability statements. Studies with unclear methodology, insufficient data, or potential misconduct should be flagged for further review.
When concerns arise after publication, editors may recommend corrections or expressions of concern in coordination with the editorial office.
Editorial decisions should be based on scientific validity, originality, and relevance to Journal of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy. Editors should avoid bias and maintain consistency across decisions.
Typical decisions include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. When revisions are requested, editors should summarize key issues and set clear expectations for resubmission.
Encourage reviewers to focus on methodological rigor, clarity of reporting, and clinical relevance. Reviews should be constructive and respectful, offering specific guidance for improvement.
Editors may invite early career reviewers when appropriate and should mentor them by emphasizing review quality and confidentiality.
After initial screening, assign two or more reviewers based on topic expertise. Monitor progress through the review system and provide reminders if deadlines are missed. When reviews conflict, editors should weigh methodological strengths and may request an additional review.
Editors should aim for timely decisions to respect author timelines and maintain reviewer engagement.
Decision letters should summarize the rationale for the decision and prioritize the most critical issues. Clear communication reduces revision cycles and improves author satisfaction.
Editors must treat manuscripts and reviewer identities as confidential. Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and editors should recuse themselves when necessary.
Confidential material should not be shared outside the editorial process. Editors should not use unpublished content for personal research.
Questions about editorial roles?
Contact [email protected] for guidance and support.
