Expertise
Confirm that your knowledge covers the manuscript's central subject and the methods on which its conclusions depend.
JAA Reviewer handbook
Guidelines for reviewers
A focused guide to confidential, constructive and evidence-aware review for the Journal of Antioxidant Activity.
Purpose of review
Reviewers advise the editor on scientific validity, reporting and scope. The editor remains responsible for the decision.
- Selection
- Invitation or vetted interest
- Review model
- Single-blind by default
- Workspace
- ManuscriptZone
- ISSN
- 2471-2140
What a JAA review should do
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
A useful report assesses whether the antioxidant or redox question is substantive, the methods suit the research or article design, and the conclusions remain within the evidence. Do not require new laboratory assays from every computational, clinical, observational, review or protocol submission.
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of a reviewer's own work. Recommendations must be independent of fees, professional benefit or personal relationships.
Before accepting an invitation
Conflict
Disclose any conflict that may affect, or reasonably appear to affect, independent assessment. Decline when necessary.
Confidentiality
Treat the manuscript and review discussion as confidential from the invitation onward.
JAA scientific assessment
Read the claim and its evidence together. Chemical or analytical, computational, cellular or biochemical, animal or preclinical, human or clinical, and population or observational studies support different inferences. An assay value or model prediction alone does not establish a biological mechanism or clinical benefit.
Question and scope
Is an antioxidant, oxidative-stress or redox question central to the contribution rather than an incidental measurement?
Material and method
Are methods appropriate and sufficiently described? For laboratory activity studies, check material identity, preparation, assay, endpoint, conditions, standards and units.
Controls and replication
Are controls, replication, validation and statistical analysis appropriate to the design and claim?
Multiple assays
If methods give different results, does the paper explain what each assay measures and why they agree or differ?
Mechanistic interpretation
Where a mechanism is claimed, does the evidence distinguish it from association and address alternatives? A new mechanism is not required from every article.
Evidence boundary
Are clinical, therapeutic, disease-prevention, immunity or anti-aging claims supported directly at the evidence level claimed?
Computational evidence
Are the model, assumptions and input data described? Are validation, uncertainty and applicability limits appropriate, and are predictions distinguished from experimentally established effects?
Clinical and population research
Are participants, interventions or exposures, outcomes and analysis appropriate? Are bias, confounding and measurement error addressed, with causal claims kept proportionate?
Reviews, methods and protocols
Reviews need transparent evidence selection and synthesis. Methods and tools need validation or benchmarking appropriate to use. Protocols need a clear rationale, complete planned methodology and analysis, not completed findings.
Transparency
Are data, code or model inputs, limitations, ethics approval, consent and trial registration reported where applicable?
Write a useful report
State the contribution
Briefly describe the question and what the manuscript appears to add.
Prioritize major concerns
Separate issues affecting validity, reproducibility or interpretation from optional improvements.
Make each comment actionable
Identify the relevant method, result or claim and explain what evidence or clarification is needed.
Check the conclusion again
Confirm that assay activity or predictions are not overstated as mechanism or clinical benefit, and that associations are not presented as causal effects.
Submit through ManuscriptZone
Provide structured feedback in the journal's review workspace and ensure the recommendation is consistent with the report.
Confidentiality and conflicts
Manuscripts and review discussions are confidential. After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material. 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. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline the assignment when independent review is not possible.
Concerns about research integrity should be described specifically and communicated to the editor within the confidential review process. Reviewers can consult the journal's Editorial Policies for the governing policy framework.
Comments should address the work rather than the authors. Constructive criticism explains why an issue matters and what evidence or reporting would resolve it.
How reviewers are considered
Reviewers are selected by invitation or from vetted expressions of interest. Consideration requires a current CV, an ORCID iD and demonstrated subject or methodological expertise relevant to JAA.
There is no open reviewer-registration pathway. Selection for a review depends on the manuscript's scientific needs, relevant expertise, independence and the absence of unresolved conflicts.
Questions about a review invitation?
Contact the editorial office before accepting when expertise, conflicts or confidentiality are uncertain.