1. Role of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the SCICONX Journal of Drug and Alcohol Research (JDAR). Reviewers contribute their expertise to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Their assessments help editors make informed decisions and assist authors in improving the quality and clarity of their work.

JDAR values the time and professional contributions of reviewers and recognizes peer review as a critical service to the scholarly community.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

By agreeing to review for JDAR, reviewers are expected to:

• Provide fair, unbiased, and evidence-based evaluations
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content and review materials
• Declare any conflicts of interest promptly
• Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe
• Offer constructive feedback to support author improvement
• Focus on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and relevance

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts or data with others without permission
• Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage
• Discuss manuscript content outside the review process

Any concerns regarding ethical issues should be communicated privately to the editorial office.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their objectivity, including:

• Recent collaboration with any of the authors
• Institutional or departmental affiliations with authors
• Financial, personal, or professional relationships
• Competitive or adversarial relationships

If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation to review.

5. Scope and Expertise

Reviewers should accept review invitations only for manuscripts that match their area of expertise. If a manuscript falls partially outside a reviewer’s expertise, this should be communicated to the editor so that additional reviewers can be assigned as needed.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on the following core criteria:

Scientific Quality and Rigor

• Appropriateness of study design and methodology
• Adequacy of sample size and statistical analysis
• Clarity and completeness of data reporting
• Reproducibility and transparency of methods

Originality and Contribution

• Novelty of the research question or approach
• Contribution to existing knowledge
• Relevance to drug, alcohol, and addiction research

Ethical Compliance

• Evidence of ethical approval and informed consent
• Appropriate handling of vulnerable populations
• Compliance with relevant ethical and regulatory standards

Clarity and Presentation

• Logical organization of the manuscript
• Clarity of writing and argumentation
• Quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials
• Appropriate and current referencing

Interpretation and Conclusions

• Whether conclusions are supported by the data
• Balance and objectivity in discussion
• Consideration of limitations

7. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their comments as follows:

Summary Comments:

A brief overview of the manuscript and its main contributions, highlighting overall strengths and weaknesses.

Major Comments:

Substantive issues that must be addressed, such as concerns related to methodology, interpretation, ethics, or study design.

Minor Comments:

Smaller issues related to clarity, organization, formatting, or minor corrections.

Confidential Comments to the Editor:

Any sensitive concerns, ethical issues, or recommendations that should not be shared directly with the authors.

8. Constructive and Respectful Feedback

JDAR expects reviews to be professional, respectful, and constructive. Comments should:

• Be specific and actionable
• Avoid personal or derogatory language
• Focus on improving the manuscript
• Support scholarly dialogue and learning

Even when recommending rejection, reviewers should provide feedback that is helpful to authors.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers are requested to submit their reviews within the timeframe specified in the invitation. If a delay is anticipated, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly so alternative arrangements can be made.

Timely reviews are essential to maintaining an efficient publication process.

10. Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

JDAR values the contributions of reviewers and may recognize reviewer service through:

• Annual acknowledgments
• Certificates of reviewing
• Reviewer activity documentation upon request

Recognition initiatives are intended to acknowledge the professional service provided by reviewers.

11. Ethical Concerns and Misconduct

If reviewers suspect any form of research or publication misconduct, including:

• Plagiarism
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Inappropriate image manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

They should confidentially notify the editor with supporting details.

12. Anonymity and Peer Review Model

JDAR operates under a peer review model designed to promote fairness and objectivity. Reviewer identities are kept confidential unless otherwise stated by the journal. Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors or disclose their identity to authors.

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers should not upload manuscripts or confidential content to public AI tools or external platforms. Any use of digital tools in preparing reviews must comply with confidentiality and data protection standards.

14. Withdrawal from Review

If reviewers are unable to complete a review after accepting, they should notify the editorial office as soon as possible to allow reassignment.

15. Contact and Support

Reviewers may contact the Editorial Office of the SCICONX Journal of Drug and Alcohol Research for clarification regarding review expectations, timelines, or ethical concerns.