Independent, confidential evaluation helps IJA publish research that advances understanding of the immune mechanisms underlying allergic hypersensitivity.
The reviewer’s role
Reviewers advise the editor on scientific validity, originality, reporting quality, ethical compliance, and fit with the journal’s scope. The aim is a fair, evidence-based assessment that helps authors strengthen sound work and helps editors reach well-supported decisions.
Your recommendation is advisory. The editor considers the manuscript, the reviewers’ reports, and the authors’ responses, and remains responsible for the final editorial decision.
Before accepting an invitation
Accept only when all four conditions are met. If one is uncertain, contact the editorial office before agreeing to review.
- Relevant expertise
- You can assess the central subject and methods. If only part of the manuscript is within your expertise, tell the editor.
- Enough time
- You can return a careful report by the date in the invitation. Decline promptly or request an extension when needed.
- Independent judgment
- Disclose relationships or interests that could affect—or appear to affect—your judgment. When in doubt, ask the editor.
- Confidential handling
- You can protect the invitation, manuscript, files, data, and correspondence and will not contact the authors directly.
How to review an IJA manuscript
- 1Confirm fit and independenceCheck your expertise, availability, conflicts, and the manuscript’s broad fit with IJA.
- 2Read the complete submissionReview the manuscript, figures, tables, supplementary files, and relevant declarations as a whole.
- 3Assess the scienceExamine design, methods, controls, analysis, results, transparency, and ethical safeguards.
- 4Test the interpretationDecide whether the evidence supports the claims and whether limitations and alternatives are addressed.
- 5Write structured commentsSeparate major concerns from minor points and make every requested action specific and proportionate.
- 6Submit your recommendationEnsure the recommendation matches the report and send confidential matters only to the editor.
What to assess
Judge each manuscript on its own research question, article type, and methods. The following framework is a guide, not a rigid scoring form.
- Scope and contributionIs the question relevant to IJA? Does the work add a clear mechanistic insight rather than make a purely descriptive or clinical claim? Is novelty stated accurately?
- Study design and methodsAre the design, controls, sampling, reagents, procedures, outcomes, and potential sources of bias appropriate and reported well enough to evaluate and reproduce?
- AnalysisAre statistical or computational methods suitable? Consider the experimental unit, sample-size rationale, missing data, multiple comparisons, effect estimates, and uncertainty where applicable.
- Results and presentationDo the results answer the stated question? Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials accurate, legible, necessary, and consistent with the text?
- InterpretationAre conclusions supported by the evidence and appropriately limited? Are alternative explanations, study limitations, and the boundary between association and causation addressed?
- Reporting and transparencyAre applicable reporting standards followed? Are ethics, funding, competing-interest, data-availability, and code or protocol statements present where relevant? Are citations balanced and sufficient?
The IJA review lens
For allergy and immunology studies, consider the following where relevant:
- Are allergens, antigens, antibodies, cell populations, assays, and reagents identified and validated clearly?
- Is sensitisation distinguished from clinically established allergy, and are phenotype definitions reproducible?
- Do immune assays include suitable positive, negative, technical, and biological controls?
- Are mechanistic claims supported beyond correlation or descriptive profiling?
- Are animal and in-vitro findings translated cautiously, with model limitations made explicit?
- Do omics and computational analyses address validation, batch effects, multiple testing, and independent confirmation?
- Has the work considered the applicable reporting guidance, such as ARRIVE 2.0, MIQE, MIFlowCyt, MIAME, PRISMA, or another relevant EQUATOR guideline?
Write a useful report
A strong report is clear enough for the editor to act on and specific enough for the authors to respond to point by point.
1. Brief summary
State the research question, approach, and overall contribution in two or three sentences to show how you understood the work.
2. Major comments
Number issues affecting validity, interpretation, reproducibility, ethics, or scope. Explain why each matters and what is needed.
3. Minor comments
List focused corrections to clarity, reporting, figures, tables, or references that do not alter the central conclusions.
4. Recommendation
Select the closest recommendation and make sure it is supported by the scientific issues described in your report.
Ethics, confidentiality and responsible tools
- Human research: Look for appropriate ethics approval and informed consent or an authorised waiver where applicable. Privacy and identifiability must be protected.
- Animal research: Look for institutional approval, applicable welfare compliance, and transparent reporting consistent with ARRIVE 2.0.
- Integrity concerns: Describe suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, or undisclosed conflicts only in confidential comments to the editor. Do not investigate independently or accuse authors directly.
- Confidentiality: Do not retain, reuse, or appropriate unpublished ideas, data, images, or methods. Delete local copies after the review process, subject to the journal’s instructions.
- Sharing the review: Do not involve a colleague or trainee unless the editor approves in advance. Any approved contributor must be identified and follow the same confidentiality requirements.
- AI and third-party tools: Do not upload manuscript text, figures, data, supplementary files, or correspondence to a generative-AI or third-party system unless the editor has provided written permission and confidentiality is assured. Disclose any permitted assistance and remain responsible for the report.
- Fair citation: Do not request citation of your own work unless it is directly necessary, and explain the scientific reason for any suggested reference.
Recommendation guide
- Accept
- No substantive scientific or reporting issue remains; only production-level corrections may be needed.
- Minor revision
- Limited, clearly addressable changes are needed and do not alter the central methods or conclusions.
- Major revision
- Important issues may be resolvable through substantial clarification, reanalysis, or additional work that is feasible without creating a fundamentally new study.
- Reject
- A fatal problem in scope, ethics, design, evidence, or interpretation cannot reasonably be corrected through revision.
The recommendation is confidential and advisory. The editor considers all reports and makes the final decision.
Reviewing a revised manuscript
Assess the response letter and revised manuscript against the prior major comments. Confirm that changes are supported and identify unresolved issues precisely. Avoid adding new requests unless they arise from the revision or concern a critical issue that was previously missed. The goal is a sound, transparent article—not repeated revision toward personal stylistic preference.
Final check before submitting
- ✓The recommendation matches the report.
- ✓Major concerns are numbered and actionable.
- ✓Confidential concerns are sent only to the editor.
- ✓The language is professional and free of personal remarks.
- ✓Requested citations are scientifically necessary.
- ✓No confidential material was shared or entered into an unapproved tool.
- ✓Relevant relationships and approved assistance are disclosed.
Contribute to rigorous allergy research
IJA welcomes researchers with relevant subject and methodological expertise to join its reviewer community and support careful, constructive peer evaluation.
Need guidance? For questions about an invitation, a potential conflict, or the review process, contact the IJA editorial office at [email protected].