Reviewer Guidelines
Peer review expectations
Reviewers ensure addiction research is accurate, ethical, and clinically meaningful.
Provide constructive feedback that improves clarity and rigor.
Review Structure
- Brief summary of the contribution
- Major concerns affecting validity
- Minor comments for clarity
- Recommendation with rationale
Evaluation Focus
- Study design appropriateness and bias control
- Statistical reporting and outcome transparency
- Interpretation aligned with results and limitations
- Ethics approval and participant protections
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and disclose conflicts promptly.
If conflicts exist or the topic falls outside expertise, reviewers should decline the invitation promptly.
Timelines
Reviewers are expected to accept or decline invitations promptly and deliver reviews within the agreed timeframe.
Timely reviews support rapid dissemination of addiction research and reduce author delays.
Feedback Quality
Provide specific, actionable feedback and cite sections where changes are needed. Focus on clarity, reproducibility, and alignment between methods and conclusions.
Data and Methods
Evaluate data availability statements and confirm methods are described in sufficient detail for replication.
Check that outcome measures and statistical analyses align with the stated objectives and that limitations are reported transparently.
Constructive Review Tips
Maintain a professional tone and avoid biased language. Balance major concerns with constructive minor suggestions.
Structured Review Guidance
Use a structured approach to ensure that all major sections, from abstract to discussion, are reviewed for accuracy and clarity.
Highlight actionable improvements that can be addressed within a revision cycle.
Recommendation Categories
- Accept with minor revisions
- Major revisions required
- Reject with detailed rationale
- Refer for additional methodological review
Confidential Notes
If needed, reviewers may provide confidential comments to editors about potential ethical issues or conflicts that should not be shared with authors.
Structured reviews help editors make timely and consistent decisions and support clear author revisions.
Well scoped reviews prioritize validity, transparency, and clinical relevance.
This approach supports consistent decisions and author improvement.
Clear recommendations help editors act quickly.
This keeps reviews focused and actionable.
Actionable reviews support stronger final publications.
Join Our Reviewer Community
Register as a reviewer and contribute to high quality addiction research.
