Editorial responsibility
Sylvia Kaduk
Sylvia Kaduk Collection
Responsible for editorial organization, correspondence and the completeness of publication records.
JIAG · The journal
Editors & reviewers
A journal depends on scholarly judgement and editorial care. Meet the people who carry that responsibility.
Editorial leadership
Stewardship of the journal
Scientific editor · Herausgeber
Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ali Altintas
Monte Carlo · Monaco
His scientific work addresses microcirculation, wound healing and reconstructive surgery. At AMA Press, he brings this research experience to the stewardship of scholarly quality and independent peer review.
Scientific profileJIAG
Our scientific
reviewers
Scholarly review depends on expertise, critical thought and a willingness to engage carefully with the work of others. We thank the members of our reviewer pool for their commitment.
Reviewer · JIAG
Manhattan, New York, USA
Prof. Dr. Marcel Salazar
Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence
Reviewer · JIAG
Türkiye
Ozgur Karcioglu
University of Health Sciences
Reviewer · JIAG
Italy
Elena Boggio
Department of Health Sciences
Università del Piemonte Orientale
Reviewer · JIAG
Rochester, USA
Ankit Rochani
Wegmans School of Pharmacy
St. John Fisher University
Previously at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Reviewer · JIAG
Irvine, USA
Prof. Dr. Alireza HeidariPh.D., D.Sc.
BioSpectroscopy Core Research Laboratory, California South University
American International Standards Institute (AISI)
His profile lists him as Director of the BioSpectroscopy Core Research Laboratory and President of AISI.
How we work
Independent judgement.
Accountable practice.
The people listed are available to review JIAG manuscripts. Their consent to being listed has been confirmed to the editorial office. Reviewers are selected for each contribution based on relevant expertise and a manuscript-specific conflict-of-interest assessment.
Membership of the reviewer pool does not establish that a particular article has been reviewed. Each manuscript requires a record of the reviewed version, reports, dates, disclosures and decision. Coauthors cannot provide independent review of their own work. When the scientific editor or affiliated organizations are involved, an editor without a relevant conflict handles the final decision.