• Confirm scope alignment and ethics compliance
• Select reviewers with appropriate expertise
• Provide clear decision letters and revision guidance
• Document rationale for complex decisions

Editors maintain consistent standards for addiction research methodology, reporting transparency, and clinical relevance.

Initial checks include scope fit, ethics approval, data availability, and manuscript completeness.

Use at least two independent reviewers when possible, balancing clinical and methodological expertise.

Editors monitor reviewer responsiveness and invite additional experts when delays occur. Timely reviewer management supports predictable decisions.

Balanced reviewer selection improves methodological rigor and clinical relevance across addiction studies.

Decision letters should summarize key reviewer concerns and clarify required revisions. Provide a short decision summary that highlights critical changes.

Editors should align decisions with reviewer feedback and specify whether revisions are minor, major, or require re review. Clear rationale improves author response quality.

Editors must disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when necessary. Ethics concerns should be escalated to the editorial office.

Editors should evaluate revised manuscripts against reviewer concerns and confirm that data or methods changes are addressed transparently.

When authors appeal a decision, editors should review the appeal objectively and consult senior editors when needed. Clear documentation supports fair outcomes.

Apply consistent criteria across manuscripts and document the rationale for decisions that diverge from reviewer recommendations.

Clear documentation supports transparency and helps the editorial team maintain aligned standards across the journal.

Documented decisions also support fair handling of appeals and revisions.

Consistency builds author confidence and improves review efficiency.

Consistent standards protect the integrity of addiction research.

Editors should secure reviewers quickly and issue decisions within reasonable timeframes to support timely dissemination.

Prompt communication with reviewers and authors maintains momentum and improves author experience.