How many reviewers evaluate each paper?
Typically two independent experts; occasionally a third is invited for tie-break decisions.
Peer Review Process
Ensuring transparency, impartiality, and scientific quality through a rigorous double-blind peer review system.
Overview
The Journal of Addiction Therapy and Research (JATR) employs a structured double-blind peer review process to ensure academic excellence, objectivity, and integrity in addiction-science publishing. Reviewers and authors remain anonymous to eliminate bias and safeguard transparency. This policy aligns with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2019), ICMJE Recommendations (2023), and WAME Reviewer Conduct Principles.
Objective: To promote constructive scholarly dialogue that refines manuscripts while upholding ethical and methodological rigor.
Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow
| Stage | Description | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Submission | Author submits manuscript via the journal’s online system (OJS). | Author |
| 2. Initial Screening | Manuscript evaluated for scope, formatting, plagiarism, and ethical compliance. | Editorial Office |
| 3. Editor Assignment | Section Editor/Handling Editor assigned based on subject expertise. | Editor-in-Chief |
| 4. Reviewer Invitation | Two or more qualified reviewers selected from the editorial database. | Handling Editor |
| 5. Double-Blind Review | Reviewers assess originality, validity, ethics, and significance without author identification. | Reviewers |
| 6. Decision Recommendation | Reviewers submit recommendations (Accept, Minor/Major Revision, Reject). | Reviewers |
| 7. Editorial Decision | Editor consolidates reviews and issues final decision letter. | Handling Editor |
| 8. Revision Cycle | Authors revise and resubmit; may undergo re-review if required. | Author / Reviewers |
| 9. Final Acceptance | Once satisfied, editor accepts paper and notifies production team. | Editor-in-Chief |
| 10. Production & Publication | Copyediting, typesetting, DOI registration, and online publication. | Production Office |
Types of Peer Review
- Double-Blind Review (Default): Identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed.
- Open Review (Optional): Reviewer identity disclosed upon mutual agreement.
- Post-Publication Review: Comments and discussions allowed under moderation for continuous improvement.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Each manuscript is evaluated based on:
- Relevance to addiction therapy and research scope.
- Scientific soundness, design, and methodological rigor.
- Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.
- Quality of figures, tables, and references.
- Ethical compliance and data transparency.
Conflict of Interest
All reviewers must declare any conflicts before accepting assignments, including:
- Recent collaboration with authors or shared funding.
- Institutional or personal relationships.
- Financial interest in competing products or therapies.
Editors ensure alternative reviewers are assigned if conflicts are identified.
Review Timelines
- Initial Screening: within 5 days of submission.
- Reviewer Invitation: within 7 days of screening.
- Review Completion: within 21 days of acceptance.
- Editorial Decision: within 5 days after reviewer feedback.
Total average turnaround time: approximately 4–6 weeks.
Ethical Oversight
All participants in the review process must comply with COPE Core Practices. Confidentiality and anonymity are strictly enforced throughout the process.
- Editors manage ethical issues using COPE flowcharts.
- Reviewers report potential ethical violations (plagiarism, data fabrication, human/animal ethics breaches).
- Editorial independence maintained in all decisions.
Editorial Communication
All reviewer communications are handled exclusively through the OJS system or official email addresses. Editors and reviewers must maintain a professional tone and avoid any direct author contact.
Appeal and Dispute Resolution
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a written justification within 30 days. Appeals are reviewed by an independent senior editor or ethics committee in accordance with COPE Appeal Guidelines.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Can reviewers remain anonymous?
Yes. JATR follows a double-blind model ensuring full anonymity unless mutually disclosed.
How are reviewer conflicts handled?
Conflicts are managed via declaration forms in OJS and reassignment by the Editor-in-Chief.