How to verify authorship and peer-review status of dementia research papers?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A practical verification strategy has two tracks: confirm who actually wrote the paper by reading its authorship, contribution and disclosure statements and checking institutional identifiers; and confirm peer review by consulting the journal’s stated review policies, indexing status and publication metadata. Journal author guidelines and submission pages routinely spell out authorship rules, corresponding-author duties, and the type of peer review used—details that can be cross-checked on the journal website and in the published article itself [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Read the paper for authorship and contribution declarations
Every reputable dementia journal typically requires a statement of individual author contributions and conflict-of-interest disclosures in the manuscript; those sections are the primary place to verify who did the work and who takes responsibility for it [4] [3]. Many journals also require a clearly identified corresponding author who “takes primary responsibility for communication” and ensures administrative and ethical requirements (clinical-trial registration, disclosures) are met, which helps locate the accountable person for follow-up [1]. If an authorship change occurred during review, journals often require signed forms from all authors; finding such notes or editorial footnotes in the published record supports authenticity [3].
2. Confirm institutional affiliations and researcher identifiers
Journals instruct that listed affiliations should reflect where the research was conducted and that author movements be noted; cross-checking the affiliation lines in the article with institutional webpages or researcher identifiers like ORCID is a practical next step [2]. Several journals ask for institutional email addresses or identifiers for suggested reviewers, indicating that institutional linkage is part of identity verification during submission—use those signals when verifying an author’s bona fides [5] [6].
3. Look for trial registration, ethics and data statements
Clinical and human-subject dementia research in leading journals requires pre-registration of trials and the trial registry number in the abstract; absence of a registration number in a clinical trial paper is a red flag because some journals will not send unregistered trials out for peer review [1]. Journals also request ethics approval and sometimes may ask for unprocessed data during peer review or post-publication queries, so the presence of those approvals in the paper strengthens confidence in authorship and oversight [3].
4. Verify the journal’s peer-review policy directly
Different dementia journals openly declare their peer-review model: single-blind, double-blind, single-anonymous, or editorial processes, and these statements are on journal submission or author-guideline pages—check the specific journal’s “Peer review” or “Author guidelines” page to confirm which model was used for that article [7] [8] [9] [10]. Journals such as Alzheimer’s & Dementia and Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy explicitly describe peer review and typical reviewer numbers, providing direct evidence that the work was peer reviewed [11] [6].
5. Cross-check indexing and journal reputation signals
Inclusion in databases like MEDLINE is an external cue of editorial standards and peer review practices for a journal; for example, Alzheimer’s & Dementia was accepted for MEDLINE indexing, which signals recognized scientific merit and standardized editorial processes [11]. Conversely, be cautious with journals or publisher sites that emphasize rapid open-access publishing without transparent peer-review statements—always confirm via the journal’s own policies [12].
6. Watch for potential conflicts of interest and reviewer-suggestion practices
Many journals request authors to suggest potential reviewers or provide institutional contacts to support the peer-review process; while intended to speed and focus review, this practice can be abused, so transparent journals will have safeguards and will state that editors make final selections independent of authors [5] [13] [6]. Disclosure statements and editorial notes—such as statements when authors are editorial board members—are important to detect hidden agendas or unusually favorable handling [3].
7. When in doubt, follow up with editors or check editorial histories
If authorship claims or the peer-review status remain unclear from the article and journal pages, published editorial notes, correspondence sections, or the journal’s editorial office can clarify whether a manuscript underwent peer review and what model was used; some journals also publish reviewer reports or open peer-review histories when requested [10] [7]. If verification is still unavailable, reporting limitations should be acknowledged rather than assumed.