JAC upholds rigorous editorial policies to protect research integrity and ensure reliable ADHD scholarship. All submissions are evaluated for scope fit, ethical compliance, and reporting quality.

Policies align with international publishing standards and emphasize transparency in study design, data reporting, and conflict disclosure.

• Compliance with COPE and institutional ethics standards
• IRB approvals, informed consent, and participant privacy protections
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding sources
• Adherence to applicable regulatory requirements

Authorship should reflect substantive intellectual contributions to study design, data analysis, or manuscript preparation. All authors must approve the final version and agree to accountability for the work.

Contributor roles should be stated clearly to reflect individual responsibilities across the research workflow.

JAC uses a single blind peer review model. Reviewers evaluate methodological rigor, analytical clarity, and clinical relevance.

• Confidential reviewer identities
• Structured editorial oversight
• Clear revision guidance

• STROBE for observational studies
• CONSORT for randomized trials
• PRISMA for systematic reviews
• CARE for case reports
• TREND for non randomized evaluations

Preprint posting is permitted provided it is disclosed at submission. Authors should describe any prior dissemination, conference abstracts, or policy briefs to avoid duplicate publication concerns.

The editorial team screens submissions for plagiarism, redundant publication, and improper reuse of text or figures. Confirmed violations may result in rejection or corrective actions.

Submissions must present accurate data and transparent analysis methods. Image manipulation, selective reporting, or undisclosed data exclusions are not permitted.

Authors should retain raw data for verification if requested.

Allegations of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism are investigated according to COPE guidance. Confirmed misconduct may result in rejection, retraction, or notification to relevant institutions.

The journal may issue expressions of concern when warranted.

Authors should provide data availability statements and identify any restrictions that apply to clinical or educational datasets. Transparent data practices strengthen trust and support reproducibility.

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments in a timely manner and provide clear explanations for any changes. Maintaining accurate records and responding to post publication queries supports research integrity.

Authors should notify the editorial office if substantial errors are discovered after publication.

Timely responses support efficient corrections.

All concerns about accuracy or integrity are reviewed by the editorial office. Corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern are issued when necessary.

Authors may appeal decisions with a written rationale. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors. Questions or complaints can be directed to [email protected].

Editorial decisions and reviewer discussions remain confidential. Manuscripts and reviewer reports are not shared beyond the editorial process without permission.

Confidentiality protects authors and reviewers throughout evaluation.

Editors enforce confidentiality for all submissions.

Confidential handling protects sensitive data.

JAC is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in ADHD research and care. We emphasize reproducible study design, clear reporting of clinical and functional outcomes, and ethical compliance across all article types.

The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].

We encourage continuous improvement in reporting practices and share updates that help the community maintain high standards in neurodevelopmental science, clinical care, and educational practice.