Purpose of these editorial policies

Archives of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (AAAI) publishes peer-reviewed, open-access scholarship intended to improve respiratory-health knowledge and support clinical decision-making. Editorial policies are the journal’s “rules of the road”—they protect readers and authors by making expectations clear, preventing avoidable disputes, and ensuring that editorial decisions are made fairly, consistently, and transparently.

AAAI’s policy set is designed to be practical. It explains: what editors evaluate, how peer review is conducted, how conflicts of interest are handled, and what happens when concerns arise after publication (for example, when corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions are needed). These policies also connect to dedicated journal pages such as Peer Review Policy, Plagiarism Policy, Publication Ethics, and related complaint-handling (grievances) procedures.

Editorial independence and decision authority

AAAI maintains editorial independence. The Editor-in-Chief (and delegated editors/associate editors) have final responsibility for editorial decisions, including acceptance, revision, rejection, and post-publication actions. Business considerations (including publishing charges) do not override editorial evaluation of research integrity and suitability.

To protect independence and consistency, AAAI uses a structured editorial workflow: initial screening for scope and completeness, ethical and integrity checks (including plagiarism screening as described on the Plagiarism Policy page), and peer review (as described on the Peer Review Policy page). Manuscripts may be declined at screening if they are out of scope, incomplete, or inconsistent with ethical requirements.

Scope and relevance

AAAI focuses on asthma, allergy, immunology, and respiratory medicine. Editors evaluate whether the work has clear respiratory/allergy/immunology relevance, uses appropriate definitions, and presents clinically meaningful outcomes where applicable. Submissions that are purely promotional, lack transparent methods, or do not provide sufficient evidence to support their conclusions may be rejected to protect readers and the scholarly record.

Peer review integrity and confidentiality

Peer review is central to AAAI’s quality assurance and is described in detail on the journal’s Peer Review Policy and Peer Review Process pages. In summary, AAAI uses peer review to assess validity, significance, and originality. Review is intended to be constructive and fair, giving authors actionable feedback that improves clarity and scientific reliability.

Reviewer and editor expectations

• Confidentiality: manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share content, data, or ideas outside the review process.
• Competence and scope-fit: reviewers should accept assignments only when they have relevant expertise and can provide a timely, thorough review.
• Conflict awareness: reviewers must disclose potential conflicts and recuse themselves where appropriate.
• Constructive feedback: critiques should focus on evidence, methods, reporting, and interpretation—not personal remarks.
• Integrity: any concern about plagiarism, data issues, image manipulation, or unethical conduct should be reported to the editor.

Research ethics and compliance

AAAI expects authors to follow recognized ethical standards for human and animal research and to disclose required approvals. For clinical and patient-centered research, manuscripts should include ethics committee approval identifiers (where applicable), informed consent statements (where applicable), and clear privacy protections for patient information. For animal research, manuscripts should confirm compliance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and ethical oversight.

AAAI’s ethics expectations are reinforced through its Publication Ethics and Ethics/Malpractice policy pages. These standards protect participants, maintain public trust in respiratory-health research, and ensure that the journal’s content can be safely used by clinicians and researchers.

Clinical content and patient privacy

Respiratory and allergy manuscripts frequently include sensitive patient information—spirometry outputs, imaging, allergy testing results, and case details. Authors should remove direct identifiers and ensure that case narratives are sufficiently anonymized. When patient images or potentially identifying details are essential to the scientific message, authors must obtain and document appropriate consent and ensure that publication is ethically justified.

Integrity checks: plagiarism, duplication, and image/data concerns

AAAI is committed to protecting the reliability of the scholarly record. The journal’s Plagiarism Policy explains that plagiarism is unethical and that manuscripts may be checked using plagiarism-detection software as part of quality control. Editors evaluate both the quantity and the relevance of overlapping text and consider context (for example, common methods wording vs. substantive copying).

In addition to plagiarism, AAAI evaluates risks such as duplicate submission, redundant publication, salami slicing, manipulated images, or fabricated data. When concerns arise, editors may request raw data, ethics documents, trial registration details, or image originals. If a concern is confirmed, editorial actions can include rejection, retraction, or notification to relevant institutions where appropriate.

What authors should do to avoid integrity problems

• Write original text and cite sources for key claims, methods, and prior results.
• Do not submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.
• Disclose related manuscripts, preprints, conference abstracts, or overlapping datasets.
• Maintain accurate records of ethics approvals, consent, and data provenance.
• Ensure figures and images are minimally processed and truthfully represent the underlying data.

Conflicts of interest, funding, and transparency

Conflicts of interest (COI) do not automatically disqualify a manuscript, but they must be disclosed so readers can interpret findings appropriately. AAAI expects authors to disclose financial relationships, consultancies, patents, stock ownership, paid expert testimony, and other interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the work. Funding sources must be stated, along with the funder’s role (if any) in study design, analysis, or publication decisions.

Editors and reviewers also have COI obligations. Reviewers should decline assignments where personal, financial, or competitive relationships could impair impartiality. Editors should delegate decisions when a conflict exists.

Appeals, complaints, and grievances

AAAI recognizes that authors may disagree with editorial decisions or perceive misconduct in the editorial process. The journal provides a grievance pathway (Grievances Policy) that allows authors to register a complaint when they believe a policy or ethical instruction was not properly followed. Complaints are reviewed by a dedicated team, which investigates and provides a suitable resolution based on the evidence and applicable policies.

How to submit an appeal or complaint (best practice)

• Be specific: identify the manuscript ID, decision date, and the exact concern.
• Use evidence: cite reviewer comments, policy statements, or factual corrections.
• Keep it professional: focus on process and content; avoid personal claims.
• Propose a remedy: e.g., “Please re-check this analysis,” or “Please assign an additional reviewer.”

Post-publication stewardship: corrections, retractions, and record integrity

AAAI is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. When issues are identified after publication—such as honest errors, unreliable data, plagiarism, or unethical conduct—the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on severity and evidence. This approach aligns with the journal’s withdrawal policy language emphasizing editorial principles and legal requirements and the preservation of versions in official archives where relevant.

When each action is used (plain-language guide)

• Correction: used when the core findings remain valid but specific details need amendment (e.g., author name, figure label, minor numerical error).
• Expression of concern: used when a serious concern is credible but the investigation is incomplete or evidence is still being gathered.
• Retraction: used when findings are unreliable due to misconduct or major error, or when ethical violations undermine the legitimacy of the work.

Special issues, guest editors, and consistent standards

AAAI supports special issues and topical collections. The journal’s special-issue guidance and FAQs describe how guest editors may be appointed and how manuscripts are evaluated. Importantly, special issues follow the same editorial standards as regular issues: peer review remains required, conflicts must be disclosed, and acceptance decisions must be justified by evidence and policy—not by personal networks.

To protect fairness, AAAI expects guest editors to avoid handling manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest. The editorial office may also provide official email IDs to editors for invitations and communication, supporting a transparent workflow.

Use of AI tools and research reporting clarity

AAAI welcomes clear, responsible writing and modern research workflows. If authors use AI-assisted tools for language improvement, formatting, or code support, they should ensure that: (1) the manuscript remains accurate and faithful to the data, (2) confidential patient or proprietary data are not uploaded to inappropriate systems, and (3) AI tools do not replace authorship responsibility.

Authors remain responsible for originality, citations, ethical compliance, and the validity of results. Editors may request clarifications about how analyses were performed and whether code or models are available for verification.