Editor Resources
Tools for consistent decisions
Editors receive practical resources to support ethical, timely, and consistent decisions.
Templates and guidance improve transparency across manuscript handling.
Resources
- Reviewer selection guidance and expertise matching
- Decision letter templates for major outcomes
- Ethics and conflict of interest checklists
- Reporting guideline references by study design
Support
The editorial office provides workflow support, reviewer reminders, and assistance with complex ethics cases.
Senior editors can advise on disputes, appeals, or potential misconduct investigations.
Training and Updates
Periodic updates cover changes in reporting guidelines, data sharing expectations, and reviewer best practices.
Decision Support Tools
- Scope screening and readiness checklists
- Guidance for handling conflicting reviews
- Templates for revision requests and acceptance letters
- Escalation guidance for ethics concerns
Best Practice References
Editors receive summaries of best practice standards for reporting, transparency, and responsible publishing in addiction research.
Workflow Support Materials
- Email templates for reviewer invitations
- Decision workflow guides for complex cases
- Checklists for ethics and data availability
- Guidance for handling revised submissions
Decision Criteria Snapshot
- Methodological rigor and transparency
- Clinical relevance and potential impact
- Ethics compliance and data availability
- Clarity of reporting and reproducibility
Using consistent criteria supports reliable decisions and reduces variation across editors.
Quality Assurance
Editors can reference checklists for final acceptance, ensuring that ethics statements, data availability, and funding disclosures are complete.
Communication Tools
Editors receive guidance on communicating decisions clearly and respectfully, including sample language for revision requests and acceptance letters.
Reviewer Management Tips
Guidance includes strategies for identifying reliable reviewers and balancing expertise across clinical and methodological domains.
Resources also outline escalation paths for ethics concerns and guidance for resolving conflicting reviews.
Quality Assurance
Editors can use quality checks before acceptance to confirm ethics statements, data availability, and funding disclosures are complete and consistent.
These checks reduce production delays and improve indexing readiness.
Consistent checks strengthen the journal standards.
They also support smoother production workflows.
Consistent use of resources improves editorial alignment.
Alignment supports reliable decisions.
Connect With the Editorial Office
We can provide policy guidance and additional resources.
