Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers ensure alcohol research is accurate, ethical, and clinically meaningful.
Provide constructive feedback that improves clarity and rigor.
Save on APCs
Member savings across tiers
Fast Decisions
Average initial review time
Global Reach
International readership
Rigorous Review
Expert evaluation
Review Structure
- Brief summary of the contribution
- Major concerns affecting validity
- Minor comments for clarity
- Recommendation with rationale
Reviews should focus on methodological rigor, clinical relevance, and transparency of reporting. Provide evidence based comments that help authors improve the manuscript.
Ethics and Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and disclose conflicts promptly.
If conflicts exist or the topic falls outside expertise, reviewers should decline the invitation promptly.
Data and Methods
Evaluate data availability statements and confirm methods are described in sufficient detail for replication.
Evaluation Focus
- Study design appropriateness and bias control
- Statistical reporting and outcome transparency
- Interpretation aligned with results and limitations
- Ethics approval and participant protections
Constructive Review Tips
Provide specific, actionable feedback and cite sections of the manuscript where changes are needed. Balance major concerns with constructive minor suggestions.
Maintain a professional tone and avoid biased language. Focus on evidence, clarity, and reproducibility rather than preference.
Timelines
Reviewers are expected to accept or decline invitations promptly and deliver reviews within the agreed timeframe. Timely reviews support rapid dissemination of alcohol research.
Recommendation Categories
- Accept with minor revisions
- Major revisions required
- Reject with detailed rationale
- Refer for additional methodological review
Recommendations should be supported with clear evidence and should prioritize improvements that enhance validity and clinical relevance.
Confidential Notes
If needed, reviewers may provide confidential comments to editors about potential ethical issues or conflicts that should not be shared with authors.
Use a structured approach to ensure that all major sections, from abstract to discussion, are reviewed for accuracy and clarity.
Highlight actionable improvements that can be addressed within a revision cycle.
Focus on clarity, reproducibility, and alignment between methods and conclusions.
Well structured reviews help authors respond efficiently.
This supports faster editorial decisions.
Timely feedback benefits authors and readers.
It improves outcomes.
It supports integrity.
It builds trust.
It supports rigor.
It improves quality.
It supports clarity.
Join Our Reviewer Community
Register as a reviewer and contribute to high quality alcohol research.
