Reviewers provide expert evaluation of antioxidant research submissions. Reviews focus on assay validity, data transparency, and relevance to the field.

• Soundness of assay design and controls
• Appropriateness of validation and replication
• Transparency of data sources and parameters
• Clarity of results and interpretation
• Relevance to antioxidant science and applications

Reviewers submit structured feedback through ManuscriptZone. JAA encourages constructive, detailed comments that help authors improve transparency and reproducibility.

Manuscripts and review discussions are confidential. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline reviews when necessary.

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.

Clearly report antioxidant assay standards, controls, and calibration methods for transparency.

Provide validation evidence or benchmark comparisons to show assay performance and reliability.

Describe data sources and preprocessing steps so other researchers can reproduce results.

Clarify how oxidative stress markers were selected and interpreted in the study context.

Use consistent notation and define acronyms at first use to improve clarity for interdisciplinary audiences.

If code or data sharing is restricted, describe access limitations and provide detailed methods.

Summarize how results support clinical or nutritional relevance without overstating conclusions.

Describe assay controls and reference standards to support reproducibility.

Explain how sample variability and batch effects were managed in analysis.

If antioxidants are compared, describe the criteria used to rank or prioritize compounds.

Highlight any bioavailability or metabolism considerations that affect interpretation.

Report whether results are based on in vitro, animal, or human evidence to prevent overgeneralization.

Note any limitations related to sample size or study duration that could influence conclusions.

Include a brief statement on data access or supplementary materials provided.

Report the main antioxidant assay or outcome measure used in your study to clarify the evidence base.

If multiple endpoints are reported, summarize which outcomes are primary versus exploratory.

Describe any relevant quality control checks applied during data collection or analysis.

Clarify whether negative or null results were observed and how they were interpreted.

Indicate if results are supported by replication or independent validation.