Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statements
Aging follows the guidelines based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Aging complies with the Committee's Code of Conduct and adheres to its Best Practice Guidelines.
Editors, authors, and reviewers should all follow the best-practice guidelines for ethical behavior and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
Peer review policy
The Editors ensure that accepted manuscripts have undergone peer review. The Assistant Editors select experts in the field as the reviewers. Aging utilizes the Web of Science Reviewer Locator Service (https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/reviewerlocator/). This service is integrated into Aging submission system. After receiving an average of 3-6 reviews (at least two), Senior Editors and/or the Editor-in-Chief make decisions as to whether the paper must be rejected outright or sent to the authors for revision. After revision, the Editors send a revised article with a detailed response to the reviewers (rebuttal) for their additional comments. If the reviewers consider further revision necessary, then the article is sent back to the authors for a second round of revision. No more than 3 rounds of revision are allowed, after which the Editors must make a final decision. Editors, including the Editor-in-Chief, do not participate in the peer review and decision-making processes of their own manuscripts. The Editors will not accept papers that contain defamation, copyright infringement, falsification, fabrication or plagiarism.
- Every unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication, and Editors/Publishers will follow the COPE recommendations. If a simple error or misconduct are confirmed, a correction, retraction, or other note will be published in the journal.
- Editors evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their scientific merit (novelty, technical merit, quality of the data, conclusions based on data, importance for the scientific community, presentation), regardless of the authors’ citizenship, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religious belief, political philosophy, gender or sexual orientation. Decisions to publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agency outside of the journal itself. The Editors-in-Chief have full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
- Editors and the editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors (all authors need to be informed), reviewers, potential reviewers, or members of the Editorial Board, as appropriate.
- Editors will not use unpublished information for their own purposes. This information will be kept confidential. Editors will only evaluate manuscripts for which they have NO substantial conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.
- Peer review is essential and obligatory. Peer review assists Editors in making decisions and provides authors with comments that enable them to improve their manuscripts.
- Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research should immediately notify the Editors and decline the invitation to review.
- All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents; they must not be shown to or discussed with others, except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. This also applies to reviewers who decline the invitation.
- Reviews should be objective. Comments to authors should help authors improve their manuscript. Personal criticism is inappropriate.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement should have the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the Editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other manuscripts.
- Reviewers who have conflicts of interest should disclose them to the Editors to declare their conflicts of interest. The Editors will determine whether the conflict is sufficient to exclude the reviewer from peer review.
- Information in the manuscript should not be used in a reviewer’s (including the reviewers who were excluded based on conflicts of interests) own research. This information must be kept confidential.