JARH editorial practice
For Editors
A practical reference for fair, independent handling of aging research and healthcare manuscripts.
Use this guidance alongside the JARH editorial policies when assessing scope, coordinating review, managing conflicts, and communicating decisions.
Independent editorial decisions · confidentiality · research integrity
Editorial work at the point of decision
Editors help safeguard a useful, ethical, and transparent research record. Decisions should reflect the manuscript, the evidence, and the journal’s stated standards—not financial considerations or personal interest.
Keep the journal’s aging focus visible
JARH spans biological aging, clinical and geriatric care, cognition, rehabilitation, mental health, caregiving, public health, social care, policy, and healthcare delivery. The manuscript should make its link to aging outcomes, people, or systems explicit.
- Ask whether the contribution is anchored in an aging question, population, setting, or outcome.
- Distinguish a genuinely interdisciplinary contribution from work whose aging relevance is incidental.
- Seek clarification or further expertise where the evidence, reporting, or ethical record needs it.
Handling sequence
A consistent path through editorial assessment
Use a documented, proportionate process that gives authors and reviewers enough clarity to take the next step.
Assess scope and readiness
Check that the manuscript has a clear aging, geriatric-care, caregiving, or aging-systems relevance, and that its question, methods, outcomes, and reporting can be evaluated.
Arrange independent evaluation
Select reviewers whose expertise fits the question and methods, manage conflicts, and give reviewers the information needed to provide a focused, confidential assessment.
Reach a reasoned decision
Base the decision on scholarly merit, ethics, relevance, and the evidence in the manuscript and reviews. Article processing charges do not influence the decision.
Communicate and document next steps
Give authors a clear account of the decision and the material points that require attention. For revisions or appeals, keep the record fair, consistent, and evidence-led.
What to look for
These cues support consistent consideration; they do not replace careful editorial judgment in the context of the individual manuscript.
-
Research qualityQuestion, design, analysis, and claims
Consider whether the methods fit the question, the analysis is sufficiently transparent, and the conclusions are supported by the reported evidence and limitations.
-
Aging relevancePopulation, setting, and outcomes
Look for a precise account of the aging population or process, the care or community setting, and the outcomes that make the contribution relevant to JARH.
-
Research integrityEthics, declarations, and originality
Check for ethics and consent information where relevant, funding and competing-interest declarations, data-availability information, and concerns that need further attention.
-
Fair processConflict management and confidentiality
Recuse where a conflict could affect impartiality. Treat the manuscript and reviewer communications as confidential and do not use unpublished information for personal advantage.
Integrity and accountability
Protect confidentiality and fair process
Use the official assignment channel for manuscript-specific questions and support. Handle concerns about ethics, conflicts, originality, data, or authorship according to the editorial policies, with confidentiality and a clear record of the reasons for action.
Keep the core guidance together
Move between scope, policy, reviewer, author, and data guidance without losing the JARH context.
Need the policy context for a decision?
Use the editorial policies as the reference point for integrity, peer review, declarations, appeals, and the published record.
Open editorial policies