JAA Editorial handbook
Guidelines for editors
A practical framework for editors of the Journal of Antioxidant Activity: scope triage, independent peer review and evidence-based decisions in antioxidant and redox research.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Fees, professional relationships and editorial service do not influence review or acceptance.
- Role
- Scholarly stewardship
- Review model
- Single-blind by default
- External review
- Normally at least two experts
- ISSN
- 2471-2140
Role and editorial independence
Editors assess relevance and readiness, select independent reviewers, evaluate reports and provide reasoned decisions. Their responsibility is to the integrity, fairness and clarity of the scholarly record.
Editorial service confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor's own work. An editor must not manage a manuscript where a relationship or interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent judgment.
Editorial workflow
Establish scope and readiness
Confirm a substantive antioxidant, oxidative-stress or redox question and evaluate methods appropriate to the design. Do not require a laboratory assay from every computational, clinical, observational, review or protocol submission.
Select independent expertise
Match the scientific question and methods to reviewers with relevant subject knowledge and no disclosed conflict.
Assess the reports
Read reviewer comments critically. The editor, not a vote count, determines whether the evidence and reporting support the next decision.
Explain the decision
Identify the material issues, connect required revisions to evidence or reporting, and communicate respectfully and without promises about outcome or timing.
JAA scientific checks
The level of claim determines the evidence required. Chemical or analytical, computational, cellular or biochemical, animal or preclinical, human or clinical, and population or observational work are complementary settings. An assay result or prediction alone does not establish a biological mechanism or clinical benefit.
| Editorial check | Question for the manuscript |
|---|---|
| Material and extraction | Are identity, source, plant part, composition, purity, solvent and conditions reported where relevant? |
| Assay and endpoint | When laboratory activity is measured, are the assay, endpoint, conditions, calibration range, reference standard and units explicit? |
| Controls and replication | Are controls, replication, validation and statistical analysis appropriate to the design? Laboratory controls are not a universal requirement for reviews or planned protocols. |
| Assay agreement | When multiple assays differ, does the manuscript explain the difference instead of treating the values as interchangeable? |
| Evidence boundary | Do claims remain within the chemical, computational, cellular, mechanistic, animal, clinical or population evidence actually studied? Are predictions, associations and experimentally established effects distinguished? |
| Ethics and transparency | Are approvals, consent, registration, data, funding, interests and limitations addressed where applicable? |
Computational studies need a model description, assumptions and input data, appropriate validation, uncertainty and applicability limits. Clinical and population studies need suitable outcomes, analysis and bias assessment. Reviews need transparent evidence selection. Methods and tools need validation or benchmarking appropriate to use; protocols need a clear rationale, complete planned methodology and analysis, not completed results. Health claims must match the evidence; product promotion and consumer-wellness advertising are outside scope.
Reviewer selection and oversight
- Select for both subject and methodological expertise.
- Select independent reviewers able to assess the central evidence.
- Check disclosed conflicts before assigning the manuscript.
- Confirm that reviewers can evaluate the assignment responsibly.
- Evaluate the substance of each report and resolve conflicting advice through editorial judgment.
- Keep the review focused on validity, transparency, interpretation and scope.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Conflicts, confidentiality and decisions
Manuscripts and review discussions are confidential. Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. Editors must apply the same confidentiality safeguards when considering AI assistance. Editors must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when independent handling is not possible. Potential conflicts should be managed with the editorial office.
A decision letter should distinguish essential scientific or reporting concerns from optional suggestions. It should reflect the editor's assessment of the manuscript and the reviewer evidence, not commercial considerations. The journal's governance requirements are set out in Editorial Policies.
How editors are considered
Editorial roles are filled by invitation or a vetted expression of interest, not by open self-registration. Consideration requires a current CV, an ORCID iD and demonstrated expertise relevant to JAA's antioxidant and redox scope.
An appointment carries responsibilities for independent judgment, confidentiality and subject-appropriate review. It does not confer preferential treatment for the editor's own submissions.
Questions about an assignment?
Consult the editorial office before acting when a conflict, confidentiality issue or scientific-integrity concern is unresolved.