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

Editors are expected to maintain consistent standards for alcohol research methodology, reporting transparency, and clinical relevance.

Initial checks include scope fit, ethics approval, data availability, and manuscript completeness. Rapid screening helps authors receive timely guidance.

• Confirm article type and reporting guideline
• Check for trial registration and consent statements
• Verify data availability and conflicts disclosures
• Ensure figures and tables are complete and legible

Editors monitor reviewer responsiveness and invite additional experts when delays occur.

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

Decision letters should summarize key reviewer concerns and clarify required revisions.

Provide a short decision summary that highlights the most critical changes for acceptance.

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

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

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

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

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

Editors should ensure that appeal outcomes are communicated clearly and with reference to the original reviewer feedback.

Maintain a clear audit trail of decisions and reviewer comments for transparency.

Clear documentation supports consistent outcomes across the editorial board.

Consistency builds author trust.