Purpose of peer review at AAAI

Peer review is a quality assurance process that helps ensure published research is credible, reproducible, and clinically meaningful. In asthma, allergy, and immunology, peer review plays a critical role in evaluating diagnostic standards, treatment implications, study design rigor, and ethical compliance—especially for clinical studies, case reports, and translational research.

AAAI’s peer review process is designed to be fair, confidential, and evidence-based. Reviewers are selected for relevant subject-matter expertise and asked to provide constructive feedback that improves clarity and scientific value.

Peer review model

AAAI uses a peer review model intended to protect reviewer independence and reduce bias in editorial decision-making. In many biomedical journals, this is typically a single-blind system (reviewers know author identity; authors do not know reviewer identity). Regardless of the specific configuration used for a given manuscript type, AAAI applies the following consistent principles:

• Confidentiality: manuscripts and reviews are confidential communications.
• Impartiality: reviewers must declare conflicts and decline when impartiality may be compromised.
• Editorial oversight: editors weigh reviewer input and make the final decision based on merit and integrity.
• Constructive guidance: reviews should help authors improve the manuscript, not simply criticize.

Stages of the AAAI review process

AAAI’s peer review process includes several stages. Timelines can vary based on manuscript type, reviewer availability, and complexity, but the steps remain consistent.

Desk decisions (editorial decline)

Some manuscripts may be declined without external review if they fall outside scope, lack sufficient methodological rigor, present ethical concerns, or do not meet baseline reporting standards. This helps avoid delays and allows authors to seek a more appropriate venue.

Reviewer selection and qualifications

AAAI selects reviewers based on expertise and independence. Reviewers may include clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and methodologists. The journal also aims to avoid conflicts of interest and to balance perspectives when evaluating multidisciplinary topics (e.g., allergy immunotherapy, biologics, immunogenetics).

Selection criteria (typical)

• Relevant publications and demonstrated subject-matter expertise.
• Independence from the authors and the study (no close collaboration or direct competing interest).
• Ability to provide timely and constructive feedback.
• Experience with study designs relevant to the manuscript (clinical trial, observational study, meta-analysis, case report).

Confidentiality and reviewer ethics

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share manuscripts or use unpublished ideas, data, or methods for personal advantage. Reviewers should not upload manuscripts to public tools or distribute files to colleagues without editorial permission.

If a reviewer believes consultation is necessary (for example, a specialized statistical check), the reviewer should request editorial permission first. Any approved consultation must preserve confidentiality and disclose the consultant’s involvement to the editor.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose conflicts that could affect impartiality. Conflicts may include financial ties, personal relationships, direct academic competition, prior collaboration with the authors, or involvement in the research being evaluated. When in doubt, reviewers should disclose and let the editor decide.

Decision outcomes and what they mean

AAAI uses standard decision outcomes. Editors consider reviewer recommendations but are not bound by them; editors weigh evidence, consistency, and integrity concerns.

How to respond to reviewers effectively

A strong revision package makes the editor’s job easier and improves the chance of acceptance. AAAI recommends:

• Point-by-point response: quote or summarize each reviewer comment and explain what you changed.
• Location mapping: specify where changes appear (page/line numbers or section headings).
• Scientific justification: if you disagree, explain respectfully and provide evidence or citations.
• Clean files: submit a clean revised manuscript and, where requested, a tracked-changes version.
• Updated declarations: update COI, ethics approvals, data availability statements if needed.

Integrity checks during peer review

Peer review includes both scientific evaluation and integrity safeguards. Depending on manuscript type, AAAI may apply checks for: plagiarism/similarity overlap, image manipulation concerns, ethics approvals and consent statements, trial registration, authorship disclosures, and conflict of interest completeness.

If a reviewer or editor identifies a serious issue, the manuscript may be paused for clarification or referred to an integrity review pathway. This protects authors, readers, and the journal by ensuring that only ethically sound work enters the permanent record.

Appeals, complaints, and disputes

AAAI recognizes that authors may disagree with reviewer opinions or editorial judgments. Authors may submit an appeal if they believe a decision was based on a factual misunderstanding, incorrect evaluation of evidence, or procedural error. Appeals should be evidence-based and respectful.

Appeals should include: (1) the manuscript ID and title, (2) a concise explanation of the concern, (3) specific points with supporting evidence/citations, and (4) clarity on what outcome is requested (e.g., reconsideration, additional review).

Complaints about editorial conduct or process can be routed through the journal’s grievances/complaints pathway. AAAI aims to address issues fairly and promptly.