The following types of manuscripts in all OAE journals are peer-reviewed: Original Articles, Research Articles, Reviews, Mini-reviews, Systematic Reviews, Case Reports, Guidelines, Perspectives, Opinions, Short Communications, Research Highlights, Conference Reports, etc. Articles other than these are generally not peer-reviewed, for example, Editorials,Erratum, Letter to Editor, etc. However, in some special cases, the in-house editors may also conduct the review. For instance, some journals conduct peer review for commentary, while others may choose not to, depending on their respective policies.
Principles of Peer Review
All submitted manuscripts will undergo an initial review by the Editorial Office, followed by an in-house editors process to organize peer review. Papers deemed lacking sufficient broad interest or presenting other inappropriate factors, as determined by the editorial team, may be rejected without external review.
Only manuscripts assessed as most likely to meet the editorial criteria will be sent for peer review, typically involving at least three reviewers. In cases requiring specialized advice (such as statistical or specific technical expertise), additional reviewers may be invited. Decisions by the Editorial Office are not based on a formal vote or a majority-rule approach. The Editorial Office evaluates each reviewer's opinion and meticulously examines the authors' responses to the comments, and the science editor may consider additional information unavailable to either party, leading to a comprehensive assessment of the manuscript.
After receiving review reports, we may seek further advice from reviewers, especially when certain issues or viewpoints in the manuscript are misunderstood. However, we note that reviewers generally prefer to avoid protracted disputes. Therefore, when necessary, we strive to minimize consultations and ensure authors receive a fair hearing.
Furthermore, varying expertise and opinions among reviewers may provide conflicting recommendations for decision-making. In such cases, the in-house editors will resolve these differences and may even seek more opinions from other experts and scholars in the same field to guarantee a comprehensive and accurate decision-making process.
Selection of Reviewers
We carefully select reviewers based on various considerations, including their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our own positive experiences with them in the past. When inviting potential reviewers, we verify their expertise and interests beforehand and communicate with them before obtaining their consent for the review. Reviewers should be mindful that information related to the manuscript is confidential and must be treated as such.
OAE is committed to principles of diversity, fairness, and inclusivity. When authors recommend reviewers to us, we strongly encourage them to consider diversity in terms of geographical region, gender identity, ethnic/racial groups, and other demographics. We strive to ensure that the review process is fair and comprehensive, reflecting the diversity of the academic community.
All OAE journals currently use a single-blind peer review process, which means we do not disclose the identities of our reviewers to authors or other reviewers. Please note that manuscripts from the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board members will undergo a double-blind review to ensure a more impartial evaluation for the publication of high-quality papers.
We request that reviewers refrain from revealing their identities to the authors when reviewing manuscripts without the knowledge of the in-house editors. If this is not feasible, we ask authors to promptly notify the editor once the reviewer has disclosed their identity.
Transparent Peer Review
Currently, among the OAE journals, only The Journal of Cardiovascular Aging follows a transparent peer review system. This means that detailed information about the peer review process is disclosed as part of the publication, including reviewers' comments, the author's point-to-point responses, and, in some cases, editor decision letters. However, it is worth noting that when a manuscript is accepted for publication, the identities of the reviewers remain anonymous on the website.
OAE Journal is committed to rapid editorial decision-making and publication. We believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to our authors and the scientific community at large. Reviewers are expected to submit standardized, independent review reports through the online system within 14 days of accepting the email invitation. Each review is completed independently by the respective reviewer. If a reviewer foresees a delay than anticipated, we kindly request they inform us promptly so that we can notify the authors and, if necessary, explore alternative arrangements.
After reviewers accept our invitation and complete the first round of review, we will invite them, based on their availability, to consider accepting our invitation for a second review to assess the revised version. If none of the original reviewers are available for the second round, we may invite new reviewers. Please note that if the editor observes that authors have not diligently addressed the reviewers' comments, the editor may decide not to send the resubmitted manuscript back to the original reviewers.
Editing Reviewer's Reports
In extremely rare cases, we may edit reports to remove offensive language or comments that involve confidential information about other matters. Reviewers are urged to avoid potentially offensive language, and instead, we strongly encourage reviewers to express their views on the paper clearly. Authors should be aware that criticism is not necessarily unfair simply because it is expressed with strong language.
Editors, authors, and reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding all details of the editing and peer review process for submitted manuscripts. Unless otherwise indicated as part of open peer review, the peer review process is conducted confidentially and anonymously; the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed. Reviewers are obligated to keep the manuscript confidential. If a reviewer wishes to seek input from colleagues while evaluating a manuscript, they must coordinate with the editor, ensuring confidentiality, and provide the names of these colleagues to the editor.
If a dispute arises from the rejection of a manuscript, the author may contest the decision and initiate arbitration. Authors should provide sufficient information (such as the point-to-point responses to reviewer comments, revised versions of the manuscript, etc.) as part of a rebuttal that should be factual and constructive to make an informed decision about whether the complaint is valid.
The process depends on the peer review stage at which the rejection occurred and the reason for the rejection. After the Editorial Office receives the author's request for arbitration, the Editorial Office will submit the author's rebuttal documents to attempt to resolve the dispute. Of course, the Editorial Office may also invite independent experts to conduct confidential arbitration evaluation at its discretion.
Depending on the complexity of the peer-review process and the reasons for rejection, we will send the final opinion and the results of the subsequent processing process to the author within a few days to a few weeks.
In cases of misconduct in published works, we will issue public corrections or retractions as necessary to maintain the integrity of the academic record. The "Author Guidelines" and "Peer Review Guidelines" for each journal provide detailed information about submission criteria and the peer review process. Please visit each journal and review the specific policies of the target journal.
If you have any questions or comments about the peer review process, journal policies, or related matters, please inform us at email@example.com at your earliest convenience.