Reviewer Guidelines

Overview

The Journal of Addiction Therapy and Research (JATR) relies on rigorous peer review to ensure the accuracy, originality, and scientific merit of submitted manuscripts. These guidelines help reviewers perform their duties responsibly, following COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2019) and ICMJE Recommendations (2023).

Objective: Deliver fair, timely, and constructive evaluations that support both editorial decision-making and author development.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, focusing on scientific quality, relevance, and clarity.
  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid unauthorized discussion or data sharing.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Provide constructive, respectful feedback with clear reasoning.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor of delays.

Ethical Principles

Reviewers must adhere to high ethical standards consistent with the COPE Code of Conduct:

  • Do not exploit unpublished work for personal advantage.
  • Avoid bias based on author nationality, gender, or institutional affiliation.
  • Report any ethical or methodological concerns immediately to the editor.
  • Support transparency and reproducibility in addiction research.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must:

  • Refrain from sharing or discussing manuscripts with others without permission.
  • Delete or securely dispose of files after completing the review.
  • Not use unpublished data or ideas for personal research.

Breaches of confidentiality are treated as serious ethical violations under COPE’s framework.

Structure of a Review Report

Section Purpose
Summary Briefly restate the study’s objectives and findings.
Major Comments Identify substantive issues in methodology, data, or interpretation.
Minor Comments Note small corrections such as grammar, clarity, or figure labeling.
Confidential Comments to Editor Provide confidential insights or recommendations not shared with authors.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and ensure feedback is evidence-based. Constructive review examples include:

  • “Consider including sample size calculation details for reproducibility.”
  • “Clarify the rationale for the selected intervention period.”
  • “Strengthen discussion by comparing results with recent meta-analyses.”

Editors value clear, actionable suggestions that improve the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Before accepting a review, reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts such as:

  • Recent collaboration with the authors.
  • Institutional or funding overlap.
  • Personal or professional relationships that could bias judgment.

In such cases, the editor may assign the manuscript to another reviewer to ensure impartiality.

Timeliness and Review Deadlines

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within 2–3 weeks of accepting an assignment. Delays should be communicated immediately to the editorial office. Timely feedback supports efficient editorial workflows and author satisfaction.

Reporting Ethical Violations

Reviewers play a crucial role in identifying research or ethical issues such as:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
  • Fabricated or manipulated data.
  • Unethical research involving humans or animals.

Any suspicion should be reported confidentially to the editor with supporting details.

Reviewer Recognition and Acknowledgment

JATR acknowledges reviewer contributions through:

  • Annual reviewer acknowledgment lists (with consent).
  • Certificate of recognition for consistent and high-quality reviews.
  • Editorial board nominations for top reviewers.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can reviewers suggest citations to their own work?

Yes, if relevant and not excessive. Self-citations must enhance, not bias, the manuscript.

What if I realize I’m unqualified to review?

Inform the editor promptly so the paper can be reassigned without delay.

Can I remain anonymous after review?

Yes. JATR uses a double-blind system; reviewer identities are not shared unless both parties consent.