JIG evaluates manuscripts on methodological rigor, reproducibility, and translational value for aging populations. Author affiliation, region, or payment status does not influence acceptance.

Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts and recuse when impartiality is compromised.

Human studies require ethics approval statements, informed consent details, and privacy safeguards. Similarity and integrity checks are conducted as part of editorial processing.

Confirmed misconduct may result in rejection, correction, retraction, or institutional notification depending on severity and evidence.

JIG editorial policies are designed to protect decision integrity from submission to publication. Every manuscript is assessed through documented checkpoints that include scope validation, ethical screening, conflict-of-interest review, peer-review assignment, and editorial adjudication based on evidence quality.

Policy consistency is maintained through standardized decision criteria and audit-ready records. This approach helps ensure that similar manuscripts receive similar treatment regardless of author location, institutional affiliation, or funding context. Editorial independence is central to long-term journal credibility.

Conflicts of interest are managed proactively at author, reviewer, and editor levels. Where conflicts are identified, alternative handling pathways are assigned to protect impartiality. Transparent conflict management strengthens trust with readers and indexing stakeholders.

Research integrity concerns such as duplicate publication, image manipulation, undeclared authorship changes, or unverifiable data are addressed under formal procedures. Corrective actions may include clarification requests, additional expert review, rejection, or post-publication updates depending on severity and available evidence.

Policy updates are implemented when standards evolve across publishing, ethics, and data governance frameworks. Authors and reviewers are expected to follow current guidance at submission and revision stages. For policy clarifications or case-specific questions, contact [email protected].

Correction and retraction pathways are governed by documented criteria to ensure proportional, evidence-based action when post-publication issues arise. Timely corrective handling protects readers and preserves trust in the journal record, especially for clinically relevant research that may influence care decisions.

Appeal requests are reviewed through a separate evaluation process focused on methodological reasoning and decision consistency. Appeals are considered seriously, but outcomes depend on substantive evidence rather than disagreement alone. This protects fairness while maintaining editorial standards.

Editorial timeliness is monitored as an operational quality metric. Balanced speed and rigor are essential for publication value, particularly in fast-moving fields where aging and immune-health findings may influence ongoing clinical practice and policy planning.

Policy-quality publishing depends on consistency between manuscript content, metadata, and governance declarations. Authors and editors should treat discoverability, licensing, archiving, and integrity controls as connected systems rather than isolated tasks. When these components are aligned early, journals can process accepted papers more efficiently, improve repository compatibility, and strengthen confidence among readers, libraries, and indexing partners. JIG maintains this systems approach to support durable visibility and reliable scholarly records in immunology and geriatrics. Clear documentation at each stage, from submission to post-publication maintenance, reduces correction risk and protects the long-term value of published evidence.

Consistent policy execution across all manuscript types is essential for long-term editorial credibility and indexing trust.

Transparent governance standards improve decision consistency.

Consistent documentation supports audit readiness.