Overview

The Journal of Addiction Therapy and Research (JATR) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process for all manuscripts, guaranteeing that research is evaluated objectively without bias related to identity, institution, gender or geography. Peer review forms the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and ensures reliability, transparency and continuous improvement of addiction-science literature.

Core Principle: The credibility of every article published in JATR depends on the independence and integrity of its peer-review process.

Peer Review Model

Type: Double-blind – authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout review.
Stages: Editorial pre-check → External peer review → Editorial decision.
Reviewers: Minimum of 2 independent experts per manuscript; a third reviewer may be consulted when opinions diverge.

Special submissions (editorials, commentaries, or invited reviews) may be reviewed by section editors or subject specialists at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Workflow

Initial Screening: Technical and ethical compliance verified (scope, plagiarism, formatting, ethics approval).
Assignment: Manuscripts meeting criteria are assigned to an appropriate Associate Editor.
Reviewer Invitation: Qualified reviewers selected based on expertise, recent publications and COI status.
Review Phase: Reviewers provide structured reports within 14 days covering novelty, methodology, data accuracy and clarity.
Decision: Editors synthesize feedback and issue one of four decisions—Accept | Minor Revision | Major Revision | Reject.
Revision and Re-review: Authors address comments; revised versions are reassessed when necessary.

Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers

Reviewers evaluate submissions on the following scientific and ethical grounds:

Originality and significance of contribution.
Clarity of hypotheses, methods, and data presentation.
Statistical rigor and reproducibility.
Ethical standards in human/animal research.
Appropriate referencing of prior work.
Language, structure, and readability.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

All submissions, reviewer identities, and comments remain confidential. Editors ensure that manuscripts are not disclosed or discussed outside the review process. Reviewers must not use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage or to disadvantage others.

Communications between editors and reviewers occur through the journal’s secure submission platform only.

Conflict of Interest Management

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must declare any real or perceived conflicts—financial, professional, or personal. Editors will reassign reviews if impartiality cannot be guaranteed. Editors also disclose potential conflicts in handling manuscripts related to their own institutions or collaborations.

Ethical Guidelines and COPE Compliance

JATR adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations. Reviewers are expected to uphold integrity by:

Maintaining confidentiality at all times.
Providing constructive and respectful feedback.
Avoiding discrimination or bias.
Alerting editors to plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical violations.

Misconduct during review (e.g., breach of confidentiality or misuse of information) may result in removal from the reviewer database and notification to the reviewer’s institution.

Review Timelines and Accountability

Standard review period is 14 days; extensions up to 21 days are allowed upon request. If a reviewer fails to deliver reports within 30 days, editors reassign the manuscript. Reviewer performance is periodically evaluated for quality, objectivity, and timeliness.

Transparency and Decision Integrity

All editorial decisions are based on reviewers’ recommendations, balanced by the Editor-in-Chief’s judgment. Authors receive anonymized reports and a justification for the decision. Appeals are considered by an independent editorial panel not involved in the initial review.

Appeals and Re-Reviews

Authors may appeal decisions within 30 days of notification by emailing [email protected] with detailed justification. Appeals are evaluated by the Ethics Committee, which may assign an independent adjudicative review. Decisions of the committee are final.

Reviewer Training and Recognition

JATR conducts periodic workshops and provides a Reviewer Handbook outlining responsibilities, confidentiality rules, and evaluation metrics. Exceptional reviewers are acknowledged annually on the journal website and may receive certificates of appreciation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is the review process anonymous for both parties?

Yes. Neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities during or after review unless both agree to disclosure.

Are preprints considered prior publication?

No. Posting on recognized preprint servers does not disqualify submission, but authors must disclose preprint DOI in their cover letter.

How are conflicting reviews resolved?

The handling Editor may consult an additional reviewer or the Editor-in-Chief to reach a balanced decision.

Can authors recommend reviewers?

Yes. Authors may suggest potential reviewers with institutional emails, but the final selection remains independent.

Peer Review Policy