Information for Reviewers

Thank you for your interest in reviewing an article for Alcohol Research: Current Reviews (ARCR). Journal reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts because they are recognized subject matter experts in alcohol research. Their input is vital in ensuring that the journal publishes only the highest quality manuscripts. If you have been invited to review an article, you can learn more about the peer review process on this page.

Target Audience and Topics

ARCR articles are written in a style that is accessible and understandable to a broad audience of scientists and clinicians, including trainees, with varying specialties and degrees of expertise in alcohol research. Article topics may cover a wide range of areas relating to the effects of alcohol use and misuse on health, function, and well-being across the life span, in addition to basic science, genetics, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of alcohol-related conditions.

Types of ARCR Articles

ARCR currently accepts article submissions by invitation only; the journal currently publishes narrative reviews and scoping reviews and Perspectives. The article type will be displayed after logging in as a reviewer within Editorial Manager—our manuscript submission and peer review tracking system—and clicking on the pending assignment(s).

Reviews

Authors of review articles may choose to submit either a narrative review or a scoping review. Scoping reviews will be indicated as such in the title of the manuscript.

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews provide a non-exhaustive synthesis of primary research done in a field, identify any gaps, and suggest areas of future research. ARCR narrative reviews use a systematic approach to search the literature but are not systematic reviews, as narrative reviews provide an unbiased overview of a topic instead of answering a specific clinical question. For this article type, authors must follow guidelines outlined in the downloadable ARCR checklist for narrative reviews [PDF – 260 KB].

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are exhaustive reviews that map evidence to identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps in a field. Scoping reviews often set the stage for systematic reviews by confirming the relevance of potential questions and criteria for inclusion or exclusion. For this article type, authors must follow ARCR guidelines and the guidelines outlined by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)—Extension for Scoping Reviews.

Perspectives

Perspective articles are meant to present a fresh point of view on an established or emerging topic of interest to the alcohol research community with the purpose of propelling the field forward in a new or different direction. Submissions should be unbiased, fully referenced, and supported by currently available evidence, encompassing important, diverse, and high-impact findings from across the area of study. Manuscripts should not primarily describe the authors' own work or a single initiative, consortium, or project. However, authors are encouraged to provide alternative interpretations of existing work, outline weaknesses and strengths of scientific hypotheses and modalities, and develop novel proposals to overcome existing problems. Perspectives fall into two categories:

Emerging concepts in alcohol research present a forward-thinking view of an emergent area of alcohol research with potentially limited extant literature, or a novel outlook on an established area of research with the aim to guide and propel the field forward.
Methodological considerations discuss the latest developments, critiques, and best practices related to methodological and analytical tools relevant to alcohol research.

For this article type, authors must follow guidelines outlined in the downloadable ARCR Perspectives Checklist. Perspective articles will be indicated as such in the title of the manuscript.

Other Types of Publications

ARCR does not accept original research articles or other types of reviews that address a precise clinical question. Therefore, reviewers should not evaluate articles based on criteria for systematic reviews or meta-analyses.

Peer Review Process

Confidentiality

During the peer review process, reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. ARCR discourages reviewers from overtly identifying themselves or providing information that may reveal their identities to the authors.

Reviewers must keep the content of the submitted manuscript and all comments made by reviewers and editors confidential.

Peer Review Invitation

Following a technical check, the ARCR editorial staff emails invitations to peer reviewers through Editorial Manager. Reviewers are provided the article abstract and asked to respond to the invitation within 3 business days by clicking on links within the email to either accept or decline the review request.

Reviewers who accept the invitation are emailed a link to the downloadable article along with instructions on the peer review process and a request to return their feedback within 2 weeks. If you choose to collaborate with a mentee to complete your review, as the invited reviewer, you are ultimately responsible for the quality and content of the review.

Reviewers who decline the invitation are asked to suggest alternate reviewers.

Timeliness

Timeliness in peer review is important to avoid delays in article publication. If you accept the invitation, please inform the journal promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfill your original agreement, or if you require an extension. If you need to decline the review, please respond to the invitation as soon as possible so that we may prevent delay in contacting an alternate reviewer.

Submitting the Review

Peer reviewers provide feedback on ARCR manuscripts by logging into the Editorial Manager site as a reviewer and clicking on "Pending Assignments." Reviewers should contact ARCR editorial staff if they experience any issues using the site (see "Contact Us" information on this page).

Conflict of Interest

All reviewers will first complete a disclosure form in Editorial Manager as part of the process to submit their peer review. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. You should not agree to review a manuscript if:

You have been a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or co-grantee with the author(s) within the last 3 years.
You have a close (personal or familial) relationship with the author(s).
You wish to gain more information about the article content without intending to review it.
The paper to be reviewed is similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

Reviewer Form

After answering the conflict-of-interest questions, reviewers will be prompted to complete a Reviewer Form in Editorial Manager.

Reviewers should download the ARCR Instructions for Reviewers [PDF – 177 KB], for guidance before completing the Reviewer Form in Editorial Manager. This downloadable PDF provides specific questions that reviewers should consider when completing the form.

If you have collaborated with a mentee to complete your review, note the name of the mentee in your comments to the ARCR editor when completing the Reviewer Form.

Resources for Reviewers

For specific tips and guidance on reviewing ARCR articles, reviewers are encouraged to download these resources:

ARCR Reviewer Checklist [PDF – 245 KB] lists items to consider after receiving an invitation to review, during the reading of the manuscript, and when writing the review.
ARCR Instructions for Reviewers [PDF – 177 KB] includes more detailed information about the review process as well as specific questions reviewers will address when providing feedback.

Contact Us

For more information or to contact journal staff, please email arcriq@iqsolutions.com.

Last Date Updated

August 5, 2024

Jump to: