Reviewer Guidelines

Guidance for peer reviewers at Journal of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy (JALR).

• Originality and contribution to Alzheimer's research.
• Methodological rigor and statistical soundness.
• Ethics compliance and data transparency.
• Clarity of presentation and structure.
• Clinical relevance and potential impact.

Reviews should be objective and free from personal bias. Evaluate the work on its scientific merit and alignment with the journal scope.

Provide specific, actionable feedback that helps authors improve their work. Distinguish between major concerns and minor edits, and use respectful language throughout the review.

Focus on the strength of evidence and the clarity of the methods rather than stylistic preferences. If a study is promising but incomplete, recommend targeted revisions that would strengthen the manuscript. Highlight key strengths so authors understand what is working well.

All manuscripts are confidential. Do not share or discuss unpublished content. If you have a conflict of interest, notify the editorial office immediately.

Unpublished data must not be used for personal research or shared with colleagues without explicit permission.

Reviewers should verify that ethics approvals, consent statements, and conflict of interest disclosures are present. Confirm that data availability statements are clear and appropriate for the study type.

Assess whether the statistical methods are appropriate for the study design and whether results are reported with sufficient detail. Note concerns about missing data, sample size justification, or unsupported conclusions.

We encourage reviewers to organize comments into major issues, minor issues, and optional suggestions. This format helps editors and authors respond efficiently.

JALR values timely reviews. If you cannot complete a review by the requested deadline, inform the editorial office promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned without delay.

For revised manuscripts, focus on whether the authors addressed major concerns and improved clarity. Note any remaining gaps that affect validity.

When submitting your review, select the recommendation that best matches your assessment: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Provide concise justification to support the editorial decision. Be specific when possible.