International Journal of Allergy – Editorial Policies

Principles that guide editorial handling

Policy controls apply from submission screening through peer review, decision and post-publication assessment. Editorial attention is directed to the quality of the evidence, the relevance to allergy and hypersensitivity, and the completeness of the research record.

Evidence-led decisions

Scientific merit, methodological soundness and scope—not informal preference—should determine editorial outcomes.

Editorial independence

Commercial considerations and article-processing charges do not determine whether a manuscript is accepted.

Transparent interests

Authors, reviewers and editors should declare relationships that may be relevant to assessment.

Proportionate action

Concerns are assessed according to their effect on the evidence, conclusions and reliability of the record.

Peer review and editorial decisions

Submissions are assessed for journal fit, scientific contribution, integrity, ethics and reporting quality. For IJA, reviewers should consider whether allergy or hypersensitivity is central to the research question and whether the methods support the proposed mechanistic interpretation.

Conflicts of interest and editorial independence

Relevant financial, professional, institutional or personal relationships should be disclosed. Authors should provide complete funding and competing-interest statements; reviewers and editors should alert the editorial office to interests that may affect—or reasonably be perceived to affect—their assessment.

Disclosures are governance inputs. The editorial office considers them when determining appropriate manuscript handling and records relevant declarations with the submission.

Research ethics, consent and responsible reporting

Where applicable, manuscripts should report ethics oversight, approval or exemption, and the basis for informed consent. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the work and its reporting comply with the requirements relevant to the study type and jurisdiction.

• Human research: identify the reviewing body and approval or exemption information, and describe consent where applicable.
• Animal research: report oversight and describe methods, welfare considerations and model limitations sufficiently for assessment.
• Allergy-specific reporting: define allergens, reagents, sensitisation or challenge procedures, immune phenotypes and clinically relevant endpoints precisely.
• Interpretation: distinguish association from mechanism and keep causal or translational claims proportionate to the design and controls.

Data, methods and reporting integrity

Manuscripts should provide enough methodological and analytical detail for editors and reviewers to assess how the evidence was produced. Relevant data, code and supporting-material statements should be accurate and consistent with the manuscript.

Traceable methods

Describe cohorts, experimental models, reagents, controls, exclusions and analytical decisions.

Consistent record

Tables, figures, legends, units, supplementary files and narrative claims should agree.

Analysis transparency

Identify prespecified and exploratory analyses where that distinction is relevant.

Bounded conclusions

State limitations and avoid extending findings beyond the populations, models or evidence examined.

Corrections and the published record

Editorial responsibility continues after publication. When a material concern is raised, IJA evaluates the available information and the effect of the issue on the reliability, interpretation or attribution of the work. Authors are expected to cooperate with substantiated inquiries and documentation requests.

The response should be transparent and proportionate. Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, the published record may require a correction or another clearly identified update. Any update should help readers understand what changed and how the current record should be interpreted.

Confidentiality and responsible use of AI

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers and editors should not share manuscript material outside the editorial process or upload confidential content to generative-AI systems or other external services unless explicitly authorised by the editorial office and compatible with confidentiality obligations.

Authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, attribution and integrity of submitted content. Tools cannot accept authorship responsibility or replace an author's duty to verify the submitted work.

Appeals and complaints

An appeal should identify the decision being challenged and provide a concise, evidence-based explanation of a substantive concern in the assessment or process. Appeals are reviewed using documented editorial procedures.

Complaints about editorial conduct, confidentiality, conflicts or the published record should include the manuscript or article details and supporting documentation. The editorial office reviews the available record and communicates the outcome through a documented process.