JARH peer review
For Reviewers
Guidance for confidential, constructive review of research on aging and healthcare.
A useful review helps the editor assess the evidence and helps authors understand the most important changes needed for a clear, ethical, and well-supported research record.
Single-blind (double-blind on request) · confidentiality · conflicts declared early
A reviewer’s role in the scholarly record
Reviewers assess the manuscript, not the authors or institutions. Thoughtful feedback can strengthen methods, clarify findings, and identify scope, reporting, or ethical concerns before a decision is made.
Start with independence and confidentiality
Manuscripts and reviewer communications are confidential. Do not share them, use unpublished information for personal advantage, or continue with a review when a personal, professional, financial, or competitive conflict could compromise impartiality.
Review sequence
A clear path through the review
Use the sequence to make the review useful to both the editor and the authors while keeping confidential concerns in the appropriate channel.
Confirm expertise, availability, and independence
Accept an assignment only when the topic and methods fit your expertise, you can complete a thoughtful review, and no conflict could affect—or appear to affect—your judgment.
Assess the research record
Read for the question, population or setting, design, measures, analysis, results, limitations, and the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions.
Write actionable comments
Separate major concerns from smaller revisions. Explain why a point matters and suggest a proportionate improvement where possible. Keep the language respectful and focused on the work.
Give the editor a clear recommendation
Use the review to identify material concerns about scope, methods, ethics, reporting, or integrity. Keep confidential comments for matters that should not be shared with authors.
What to assess
Read the manuscript as an integrated argument: its relevance, methods, evidence, reporting, and implications should support each other.
-
Aging relevancePopulation, setting, and outcome
Check that the manuscript clearly explains its relevance to aging, older adults, caregivers, or aging-care systems, rather than relying on a broad claim of relevance.
-
Methods and evidenceDesign, measures, analysis, and limitations
Consider whether the design and measures suit the question, the analysis is transparent, and the reported limitations are sufficient for readers to interpret the findings.
-
Ethics and transparencyConsent, declarations, and reproducibility
Flag missing ethics or consent information where relevant, undisclosed funding or conflicts, unclear data availability, or reporting detail that prevents a meaningful assessment.
-
Usefulness of the reviewSpecific, constructive, and proportionate feedback
Explain the priority of each point. A review should help the editor understand the evidence and help authors distinguish essential changes from presentation improvements.
Ethics and integrity
Raise concerns through the right channel
If a manuscript raises a concern about ethics, consent, conflicts, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data, or image integrity, explain the concern clearly in confidential comments to the editor. Keep author-facing feedback focused on constructive improvements to the work.
A useful review structure
A concise structure helps the editor and authors locate the main issues without losing the reasoning behind them.
Keep the review specific and constructive
Use the editorial policies and the journal scope as the reference point for a fair, confidential, and evidence-led review.
Open editorial policies