Review Process

Peer-Review Process for Authors

Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions employs a double-blind peer review system, which ensures that the identities of both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to one another. Each manuscript undergoes a thorough evaluation process, typically involving at least two external reviewers and editors from the Journal.

The following is an outline of the peer review process:

  1. The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who determines its suitability for further evaluation. A Section Editor is assigned to each manuscript deemed suitable for review. Preliminary review by the Editor-in-Chief includes adherence to the Journal's focus and scope, publication quality, language quality, ethical standards, and conflict of interest.
  2. Manuscripts that do not qualify for peer review, such as those that lack scientific merit, originality, or relevance to the target audience, may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external review.
  3. If the Editor-in-Chief and/or a Section Editor deems the manuscript suitable for evaluation, it is then sent to at least two independent reviewers for double-blind peer review.
  4. The Section Editor carefully reviews the evaluations provided by the reviewers and then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
  5. Ultimately, the final decision to accept or reject an article rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals and Complaints

The Journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals and complaints regarding the peer review process. Appeals to editorial decisions are welcomed. However, authors must present strong evidence, additional information, and data in the appeal letter.

Authors can send an appeal letter to the editorial office via [email protected]. Appeal letters should include (if available):

  • The reasons for the appeal,
  • Details of the technical errors,
  • Reasons for disagreements and disputes,
  • Evidence regarding conflict of interest,
  • Additional or new resources, evidence, information, and data.

The editors will respond to the request within two months. Editors may reject or accept the manuscript, request a revision, or suggest initiating an additional review process. All decisions on appeals are final.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have been sent for peer review cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily. However, if significant delays occur in the peer-review process, authors are entitled to withdraw their manuscripts. For manuscripts that have not yet begun the peer review process, the corresponding author may request withdrawal by sending an email to [email protected].

Peer-Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

A technical check is carried out by the editorial office including:

  • Similarity checks via Turnitin or iThenticate,
  • Format requirements,
  • Whether all the necessary information is provided or not,
  • Completion of files, forms, documents, and statements.

Preliminary review by the Editor-in-Chief includes adherence to:

  • Journal's aim, focus, and scope,
  • Publication quality,
  • Language quality,
  • Ethical standards,
  • Conflict of interest.

The Editor-in-Chief either rejects the manuscript or forwards it to Section Editors.

Reviews by the Section Editors include:

  • Objective errors,
  • Language errors (grammar, spelling rules, and related scientific literature),
  • Research quality,
  • Compliance with ethical considerations and standards for the research.

Section Editors either reject the manuscript or forward it to peer-reviewers.

Review process by peer-reviewers includes:

  • Declaration of competing interests: If there is a conflict of interest, the editorial office will evaluate the relationship. If deemed permissible, reviewers will be assigned. The editorial board will follow the COPE’s guideline on conflict of interests.
  • Thorough review of the manuscript.
  • Quality evaluations: Research question, hypothesis, theoretical background and relevance to the scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation, major strengths and weaknesses.
  • Providing feedback: Suggestions of changes to improve the study or the presentation of the results.
  • Recommendation: Making one of four recommendations: “Accept for publication”, “Minor revision”, “Major revision”, or “Reject”.
  • Drafting a review report:
    • Supporting the points made in the comments with literature citations if appropriate.
    • Providing specific feedback on the manuscript file (e.g., PDF comments) if needed.
  • Confidential Comments: Providing confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief, given separately from the comments to the authors.

Final Decision for Publication

  • Once the authors complete revisions and/or the final version of the manuscript, the Section Editors forward their recommendation for publication to the Editor-in-Chief. There may be more than one round of peer review before a final decision is made.
  • The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the recommendations of the Section Editors and makes a final decision. A manuscript can be either accepted for publication or rejected.
  • If the manuscript is accepted, the production team will prepare the manuscript for publication.

Editorial and Review Policy for Special Issues

Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions may occasionally publish special issues to facilitate contemporary, thematic, and in-depth discussions within the field of addiction studies. To maintain the journal's publication quality and academic integrity, the management, evaluation, and peer-review processes of special issues are subject to the following principles:

  • Ultimate Editorial Responsibility: The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate editorial responsibility for all content published in Addicta, including special issues. All special issue content must align strictly with the journal’s scope, publication policies, and academic standards.
  • Editorial Oversight and Peer Review: All manuscripts submitted for a special issue undergo the exact same rigorous editorial oversight, preliminary review, and double-blind peer review process as regular submissions. No privileges or exemptions are granted to manuscripts submitted to special issues.
  • Selection and Competence of Guest Editors: The academic competence, expertise, and publication track record of proposed Guest Editors are meticulously reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board. Guest Editors must possess proven scientific merit relevant to the specific theme of the special issue.
  • Oversight of Guest Editors: All editorial activities, reviewer assignments, and progress management handled by Guest Editors are closely monitored and supervised by the Editor-in-Chief or designated members of the Editorial Board to ensure transparency and impartiality throughout the process.
  • Independent Evaluation Process: Papers submitted to the special issue by the Guest Editors themselves (as authors or co-authors) are subjected to a completely independent evaluation process. The respective Guest Editor will have no role, influence, or access to the processing of their own submission; the entire process is managed directly by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent Editorial Board member.
  • Publication Quota: The number of manuscripts co-authored or authored by Guest Editors within a specific special issue is strictly limited and cannot exceed 25% of the total number of articles published in that special issue.