Reviewer's Responsibilities

Overview

Peer reviewers are essential partners in maintaining the quality, transparency, and credibility of addiction research published in JATR. This page outlines the ethical responsibilities, review structure, and professional expectations reviewers must uphold, based on COPE, ICMJE, and WAME standards.

Objectivity and Impartiality

• Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, without personal bias or prejudice.
• Constructive criticism should be professional, specific, and respectful.
• Personal criticism or derogatory remarks are unacceptable.
• If a reviewer feels unqualified or conflicted, they must decline the review promptly.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must:

• Refrain from sharing or discussing manuscripts with others.
• Use secure channels for communication with the editorial office.
• Destroy or delete manuscript files after review completion.
• Not use unpublished data or ideas for personal benefit.

Any breach of confidentiality may lead to removal from the reviewer database and notification to relevant institutions.

Integrity and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must adhere to the highest ethical standards by:

• Identifying potential ethical concerns, plagiarism, or data manipulation.
• Reporting suspected research misconduct directly to the editor-in-chief.
• Respecting the confidentiality of author and reviewer identities (double-blind review).
• Ensuring their review is based on evidence, not assumptions or personal beliefs.

Timeliness

Reviewers must complete evaluations within the designated timeline (typically 14–21 days). Delays must be communicated early to prevent hindering publication progress.

Failure to meet deadlines without communication may affect future reviewer invitations.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should disclose any conflict such as:

• Recent collaboration with the author(s).
• Shared institutional or funding affiliations.
• Competing research interests or grant applications.

In such cases, reviewers must decline the review or consult the handling editor for reassignment.

Constructive Feedback

Effective peer review improves manuscripts and supports author development. Reviewers are encouraged to:

• Provide clear and specific suggestions for improvement.
• Differentiate between major and minor issues.
• Support critiques with literature or methodological reasoning.
• Recognize and highlight the study’s strengths as well as weaknesses.

Balanced reviews promote a collaborative scholarly environment and author growth.

Structure of Review Reports

1. Summary: Outline study aim, scope, and general assessment.
2. Major Comments: Identify key methodological or conceptual issues.
3. Minor Comments: Suggest stylistic, grammatical, or formatting corrections.
4. Recommendation: Indicate clear decision (accept, revise, or reject) with justification.

Confidential comments to editors should be factual, concise, and distinct from author-facing feedback.

Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers are expected to identify and report:

• Data inconsistencies or potential fabrication.
• Unethical research practices (e.g., lack of consent or IRB approval).
• Duplicate submission or plagiarism detected through prior familiarity.

Reports should be confidentially directed to the editorial office with evidence or rationale.

Acknowledgment and Recognition

JATR values the contributions of peer reviewers. Recognition may include:

• Certificates of appreciation for high-quality reviews.
• Annual reviewer acknowledgment (with consent).
• Editorial Board consideration for consistent reviewers.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)