JAA supports open and responsible data sharing to strengthen reproducibility and long term reuse. Authors should deposit datasets in recognized repositories and include a clear data availability statement.

Data archiving improves validation, enables secondary analysis, and increases confidence in antioxidant research outcomes.

Authors should provide the data required for independent verification of results. This includes raw data, processed outputs, and metadata describing assay conditions and experimental design.

• Raw assay or analytical data
• Processed datasets used for analysis
• Metadata describing sample preparation and conditions
• Quality control summaries and thresholds

Analytical code and workflows improve reproducibility. When feasible, share scripts or analysis pipelines that allow others to reproduce results.

If code cannot be shared, provide sufficient methodological detail to enable independent verification.

For sensitive or proprietary data, use controlled access repositories and comply with privacy regulations. Authors should describe access conditions and timelines clearly.

Embargoes may be granted when justified by intellectual property or regulatory constraints, but authors should state the embargo end date and access process.

• General data: Zenodo, Figshare, Dryad
• Biochemistry data: MetaboLights, PRIDE, MassIVE
• Clinical data: approved institutional repositories
• Code repositories: GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket

JAA is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in antioxidant science. We emphasize reproducible methods, complete data statements, and ethical compliance across all article types.

The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].

We encourage continuous improvement in reporting practices and share updates that help the community maintain high standards in antioxidant research.

Include a concise summary of antioxidant mechanisms studied, such as radical scavenging, metal chelation, or enzyme modulation, so readers can quickly understand the biological focus of the work.

Report assay conditions in detail, including concentrations, incubation times, and reference standards, to ensure that antioxidant activity can be reproduced and compared across studies.

When using cell based or in vivo models, clarify dosing, bioavailability considerations, and how antioxidant outcomes were quantified relative to controls.

If multiple antioxidant assays are used, explain how results are integrated and whether assays measure distinct mechanisms or overlapping effects.

Describe how oxidative stress biomarkers were selected, measured, and validated, especially when translating findings to clinical or nutritional contexts.

Provide clear statements about sample sourcing, extraction methods, and compound purity for plant or food derived antioxidants.

Discuss limitations such as assay specificity, matrix effects, or variability between biological replicates to help readers interpret results responsibly.

When reporting comparative studies, explain why certain antioxidants or formulations were chosen and how they align with current literature.

Highlight any translational implications, including potential therapeutic, dietary, or preventive applications, while avoiding overstated claims.

If data or code are restricted, describe access pathways and provide sufficient methodological detail to enable independent verification.