Before submitting your manuscript, consider checking it with Penelope, an online tool that checks the completeness of scientific manuscripts. Penelope checks your Word document in two minutes and does not share or store documents. Penelope was developed by Penelope Research (www.peneloperesearch.com) in collaboration with the EQUATOR Network.
Addiction welcomes submissions relating to clinical, epidemiological, human experimental, policy-related and historical aspects of behaviours that have addictive potential including, but not limited to, use of alcohol, opiates, stimulants, cannabis, tobacco, and gambling.
For a list of types of articles that Addiction publishes, with definitions, further instructions and word limits, see Section 11 below.
Addiction will not normally publish commentaries, editorials or reviews from authors with a specific conflict of interest in relation to the topic of the article.
To submit an article to Addiction please read our requirements and ethical principles below and submit your paper using our online system. We aim to get a response to authors within 12 weeks.
Before submitting your manuscript, consider checking it with Penelope, an online tool that checks the completeness of scientific manuscripts, by using the button below. Penelope checks your Word document in two minutes and does not share or store your document. Penelope was developed by Penelope Research (www.peneloperesearch.com) in collaboration with the EQUATOR Network.
For further guidance on Addiction’s priorities when considering articles please see Addiction's priorities when evaluating submissions.
Addiction prefers authors to delay publicising the findings of submitted papers until the peer review process is finished. This is mainly to avoid confusion should peer review reveal that findings, as stated, are not borne out.
Authors should pay special attention to the guidance on the website relating to the specific type of article being submitted.
A useful guide to writing up papers for journals such as Addiction can be found in the following checklist for writing up research reports.
The manuscript should comprise a single Word file unless it is essential to put figures in other files. All pages should be numbered.
Figures and tables: All tables and figures should be cited in the text. Do not insert tables and figures into the main body of the text; instead, indicate where they should appear in the text and place them at the end of the document.
Legends should include keys to any symbols. In the full-text online edition of the journal, figure legends may become truncated in abbreviated links to the full-screen version. Therefore, the first 100 characters of any legend should inform the reader of key aspects of the figure.
Front sheet(s): Front sheet(s) should always include title, list of authors, author affiliations and addresses, running head, word count (excluding abstract, references, tables, and figures), declarations of competing interest, and clinical trial registration details (if applicable).
Abstracts: Abstracts for research reports use the following headings: Aims (or Background and Aims, if appropriate), Design, Setting, Participants/Cases, Intervention(s) (and comparator(s)) (if appropriate), Measurements, Findings, Conclusions. Where it seems more appropriate, abstracts for research reports can be structured under the following headings: Aims (or Background and Aims, if appropriate), Methods, Results, Conclusions. Abstracts for review articles use the following headings: Aims (or Background and Aims, if appropriate), Methods, Results, Conclusions. Abstracts for case reports and case series use the following headings: Aims (or Background and Aims), Case Description(s), Conclusions. Abstracts should generally be no more than 300 words. Any numbers provided in the abstract must match exactly those given in the main body of the text or tables. With quantitative studies involving statistical tests, abstracts must provide p values or effect sizes with confidence intervals for key findings. The conclusion must provide the main generalisable statement resulting from the study; i.e. the sentence(s) that someone citing the study could use to describe the findings without modification. Do not use abbreviations in the abstract conclusion. See also our guide to writing conclusions in abstracts. Six to 10 key words should be provided.
Null findings: Authors should only report ‘no difference’ between conditions or lack of associations if they can demonstrate this by calculating Bayes Factors. A Bayes Factor of less than 0.3 would normally be required to be confident that there really is no difference or association. Otherwise null findings should be framed as ‘the findings were inconclusive as to whether or not a difference/association was present’ or some similar wording.
P-values and confidence intervals: Authors should cite exact p-values for primary statistical tests. Addiction adopts the conventional 5% value for statistical significance and does not accept terms such as ‘trend’ for cases where p<0.10. In general estimated values should include 95% confidence intervals or Bayesian credibility intervals.
References: References should follow the basic numbered Vancouver style. Provide up to the first six authors and then follow by et al, then the last author if this person is the senior author for the paper. Issue/part numbers are not required. Do not include citations to conference abstracts or unpublished work to support substantive claims but do use them if needed to give credit where appropriate. Please ensure that the introduction and discussion sections of your article cite the most recent relevant literature and not just literature from your own research group, region or country. Papers may include systematic reviews and one or two of the pivotal studies that a review has summarised.
Archiving of source material: Authors are invited to archive any web references before citing them, using WebCite ® technology. This service ensures that cited web material will remain available to readers in the future.
Defamatory statements: Authors should refrain from making defamatory statements about specific individuals or organisations, whether or not they believe these are justified. We will continue to raise issues and make comments about the behaviour of sectors such as the alcohol industry, and we will analyse and critique research and claims made by vested interests.
Hypothesis tests: Addiction expects that authors claiming to test hypotheses will have pre-registered these and the proposed analysis plan, with a date stamp, to provide evidence that the hypothesis was generated prior to viewing the results. A simple way to do this is through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io). Hypotheses that have been pre-registered can be given the label ‘pre-registered hypothesis’ with a link to the OSF reference.
Permission to reprint source material: If a paper uses all or parts of previously published material, the author must obtain permission from the copyright holder concerned. It is the author’s responsibility to obtain these permissions in writing and provide copies to Addiction.
Histograms: Do not include histograms with three-dimensional blocks or shading as this can make interpretation difficult.
Colour illustrations: Authors are expected to pay the full cost for reproducing colour artwork. Therefore, please note that if there is colour artwork in your manuscript when it is accepted for publication, Wiley-Blackwell require you to complete and return a colour work agreement form before your paper can be published. Please note we can only accepted original copies of the form. Faxed or scanned forms are not acceptable.
Preparation of electronic figures for publication: Although low quality images are adequate for review purposes, print publication requires high quality images to prevent the final product being blurred or fuzzy. Submit EPS (lineart) or TIFF (halftone/photographs) files only. MS PowerPoint and Word Graphics are unsuitable for printed pictures. Do not use pixel-oriented programmes. Scans (TIFF only) should have a resolution of 300 dpi (halftone) or 600 to 1200 dpi (line drawings) in relation to the reproduction size (see below). EPS files should be saved with fonts embedded (and with a TIFF preview if possible). For scanned images, the scanning resolution (at final image size) should be as follows to ensure good reproduction: lineart: >600 dpi; half-tones (including gel photographs): >300 dpi; figures containing both halftone and line images: >600 dpi. Further information can be obtained at Wiley-Blackwell ’s Electronic Artwork Guidelines.
Supporting information: Additional material such as video clips and lengthy appendices (e.g. extensive reference lists or mathematical formulae/calculations), that are relevant to a particular article but not suitable or essential for the print edition of the journal, may also be considered for publication. Please refer to all supporting information in the manuscript using Table S1, Figure S1, etc., and supply such information as separate files (i.e. not embedded within the main manuscript). Further information on suitable file formats etc. may be found at Author Services.
English-language editing: If English is not the first language of authors, they are advised to have their manuscript edited by a native English speaker before submission. However, we will do our best to accommodate papers from authors in countries where the resources do not exist for this.
Unsubmitting articles: A manuscript that does not comply with journal requirements will be unsubmitted and returned to the author.
The journal supports the ethical principles enshrined in The Farmington Consensus. As such, when submitting papers online, authors will be asked to state that
Addiction adheres to the definition of authorship set up by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which requires authorship to be based upon a) substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and c) final approval of the version to be published. Every author should meet conditions a, b and c.
Declarations of interest are required for all submissions and should appear after the list of authors and addresses. Declarations of interest do not indicate wrongdoing but they must be declared in the interests of full transparency. Authors should declare sources of funding, direct or indirect, and any connection of any of the researchers with the tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical or gaming industries or any body substantially funded by one of these organisations. Authors are also required to declare any financial conflict of interest arising from involvement with organisations that seek to provide help with or promote recovery from addiction. Any contractual constraints on publishing imposed by the funder must also be disclosed. Declaring a conflict of interest is the responsibility of authors and authors should err on the side of inclusiveness In line with the ICMJE conflict of interest policy, the time window for these financial links is within 3 years of the date of article submission. If an undeclared conflict of interest comes to light, we reserve the right to publish this prominently and to place it on a public register using words along the lines of '[name] has the following conflict of interest which h/she has not declared'.
Data files and command files: As a precaution against fraud and violation of ethical principles, Addiction may ask authors for original data or copies of original supporting paperwork during the review process. In any event, Addiction encourages authors to provide anonymised data files used in studies wherever possible as well as statistical command files. These should be included as supplementary files to go online with the paper and should be referred to in the paper.
Plagiarism: Plagiarism involves using someone else’s work without appropriate attribution. If sections of text numbering more than 10 words have been copied verbatim these must be put in quotation marks and a full citation given. Copying more than a few lines verbatim is not normally acceptable unless a specific reason can be given and permission has been obtained from the owner of the copyright (and the author, if different). We will treat plagiarism as serious professional misconduct and respond accordingly.
Violations: If serious violation of these ethical standards has been found to occur (e.g. fraud, attempts at duplicate publication or failure to declare obvious and major conflicts of interest), Addiction may take action beyond rejecting the manuscript, including barring authors from submitting to the journal or reporting authors to appropriate authorities.
Each manuscript is read by a Senior Editor and those that are considered clearly uncompetitive or unsuited to this journal will be declined without going to full review. This happens to approximately 50% of manuscripts. This process should take no more than 4 weeks.
Manuscripts that pass this stage are sent to an Assistant Editor who may return the manuscript unreviewed if he or she identifies a serious limitation. Otherwise he or she invites reviews and on the basis of these makes a recommendation to the Senior Editor. The Senior Editor will then communicate his or her own decision to the authors, taking account of the comments and recommendations received from the Assistant Editor and reviewers. This process should take no more than three months.
If authors are invited to revise a manuscript and resubmit it, they should submit the revised version within 6 weeks. An extension will usually be granted if requested. A decision on the revised version may be taken by the Senior Editor or he or she may consult an Assistant Editor or put the revision through another full review process, depending on the nature of the revisions that had been requested. A decision on the revised version should normally take less time than the original review process.
Reviewers have the option of disclosing their identity to the authors by adding their name to the bottom of their review comments. We encourage this in the interests of transparency.
Requests for appeal will usually be considered only where the author makes a case that one or more reviewer, or the editor, has clearly made a substantive mistake. They will not normally be considered where there is a difference of opinion about the importance of the findings or where the author believes that issues can be rectified in a revision.
It is important to bear in mind that the comments received by authors are primarily intended to help with making revisions should authors wish to submit the manuscript elsewhere. In many cases the decision not to publish will be made on grounds of priority given the pressure on space within the journal.
Submissions not sent out for external review are subject to the same grounds for appeal as submissions that have undergone full peer review. Please address appeal requests in writing to the Editor-in-Chief and send to the Journal Manager: firstname.lastname@example.org.
When proofs are ready, the corresponding author will receive an email alert containing a link to a web site. It is therefore important that the corresponding author provide a current, working email address. The proof can be downloaded as a PDF (portable document format) file from this site. Acrobat Reader will be required in order to read this file. This software can be downloaded free of charge from the Adobe website. The file can be opened, read on screen, and printed out in order for any corrections to be added. Further instructions will be sent with the proofs. In your absence, please arrange for a colleague to access your e-mail to retrieve the proofs. Proofs must be returned to the Production Editor within three days of receipt.
As changes to proofs are costly, we ask that you only correct typesetting errors. Excessive changes made by the author in the proofs, excluding typesetting errors, will be charged separately.
Other than in exceptional circumstances, all illustrations are retained by the publisher. Please note that the author is responsible for all statements made in his or her work, including changes made by the copy editor.
Addiction is covered by Wiley-Blackwell’s Accepted Articles service. Accepted Articles publishes peer reviewed, accepted articles online within ten days of their acceptance for publication, prior to their ultimate inclusion in a print or online issue and without having been copy-edited. This service ensures the earliest possible circulation of research papers immediately after acceptance. Readers should note that articles published within Accepted Articles have been fully refereed, but have not been through the copy-editing and proof correction process. The Society for the Study of Addiction and Wiley-Blackwell cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these papers; nor do the views and opinions expressed necessarily reflect those of The Society for the Study of Addiction or Wiley-Blackwell. Accepted Articles papers appear in PDF-only format, without the accompanying full-text HTML. Accepted Articles are fully citable via their Digital Object Identifier (DOI). After print publication, the DOI remains valid and can continue to be used to cite and access the article.
Addiction is covered by Wiley-Blackwell’s Early View service. Early View articles are complete full-text articles published online in advance of their publication in a print or online issue. Early View articles are complete and final. They have been fully reviewed, revised and edited for publication, and the authors’ final corrections have been incorporated. Because they are in final form, no changes can be made after online publication. The nature of Early View articles means that they do not yet have volume, issue or page numbers, so they articles cannot be cited in the traditional way. They are given a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), which allows the article to be cited and tracked before it is allocated to an issue. After print publication, the DOI remains valid and can continue to be used to cite and access the article.
Allocation to an issue
Articles will normally be allocated to an issue and appear within 6 months of acceptance. At this stage the article will have volume, issue and page numbers.
OnlineOpen is available to authors of articles who wish to make their article available to non-subscribers on publication. With OnlineOpen, the author, the author’s funding agency, or the author’s institution pays a fee (currently US$3200) to ensure that the article is made available to non-subscribers upon publication via Wiley Online Library, as well as deposited in the funding agency’s preferred archive. The journal website contains a full list of terms and conditions. Any author wishing to publish his or her paper via OnlineOpen must complete the payment form available from the Wiley-Blackwell website Do not inform the editorial office that you intend to publish your paper OnlineOpen until after your paper has been accepted. All OnlineOpen articles are treated in the same way as any other article. They go through the journal’s standard peer-review process and are accepted or rejected based on their own merit.
Free access to the final PDF of your article will be available via Author Services only. Please therefore sign up for Author Services if you would like to access your article PDF offprint and enjoy the many other benefits this service offers. Additional author offprints may be ordered online. The corresponding author will be sent a complimentary copy of the issue in which his or her paper is published.
If your paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author for the paper will receive an email prompting him or her to login into Author Services, where via the Wiley Author Licensing Service (WALS) he or she will be able to complete the license agreement on behalf of all authors on the paper.
For authors signing the copyright transfer agreement: If the OnlineOpen option is not selected, the corresponding author will be presented with the copyright transfer agreement (CTA) to sign. The terms and conditions of the CTA can be previewed in the samples associated with the Copyright FAQs.
For authors choosing OnlineOpen: If the OnlineOpen option is selected, the corresponding author will have a choice of the following Creative Commons License Open Access Agreements (OAA):
To preview the terms and conditions of these open access agreements please visit the Copyright FAQs hosted on Wiley Author Services.
If you select the OnlineOpen option and your research is funded by The Wellcome Trust and members of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) or the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) you will be given the opportunity to publish your article under a CC-BY license supporting you in complying with your funder requirements. For more information on this policy and the journal’s compliant self-archiving policy please visit the Wiley Funder Agreement page.
Authors are themselves responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.
Online production tracking
Online production tracking is available for your article through Wiley-Blackwell’s Author Services. Via Author Services, authors track their accepted articles through the production process to publication online and in print. Authors can choose to receive automated e-mails at key stages of production.
Wiley gives its authors free access to Kudos, a web-based service that provides authors with a set of tools to explain and share their published work for greater usage and impact. Authors also receive access to a publication dashboard where they can view downloads, citations, and altmetrics for their articles.
The paragraphs below describe the types of article published by Addiction and provide additional guidance for people seeking to contribute each type of article.
Asterisks (*) signal articles types that are by invitation only. If authors are interested in contributing such an article they should email the London office (email@example.com) setting out their proposal. Other types of article may also be invited. If an article is formally invited, it will still undergo peer review and may be rejected. When it comes to submitting invited articles authors should be sure to select “Europe, Africa & Asia” as the Regional Office.
Research Reports (including Short Reports)
Research reports are papers reporting original findings from individual studies (or groups of studies). The study or studies may be qualitative or quantitative and may involve experimental or non-experimental designs.
Addiction does not publish research involving non-human animals; such papers can be sent to Addiction Biology.
Authors of research reports should aim for no more than 3500 words excluding abstract, tables and references. However, we recognise that clinical trials and studies with complex methods/analyses may require greater length to ensure full reporting of all relevant aspects of methods and results.
Qualitative manuscripts may be up to 4500 words to facilitate the inclusion of direct quotations within the main text, but this is in lieu of any tables. There is no minimum word length.
Articles under 2000 words excluding abstract, tables and references should use the category ‘short report’.
Please note that we no longer publish case reports or case series.
We may commission commentaries on research reports.
Research reports should be structured:
The following instructions relate to particular kinds of research report.
If you are not sure which guidelines are the most relevant for your type of study, the EQUATOR Network and Penelope Research have developed an online tool to help you find the right checklist for your work.
Reviews draw together a body of literature to reach one or more major conclusions. They are expected to use and refer to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). It is expected that reviews will be ‘systematic’, which means they will set out very clearly the search strategy (including key words where appropriate), the selection criteria for articles to include, and the basis for integrating findings. A review may be up to 4000 words.
Reviews that do not conform fully to PRISMA may be considered if authors can provide a convincing case that the procedures used are not likely to lead to bias in the conclusions.
We may commission commentaries on reviews. Addiction will not normally consider unsolicited reviews written by authors with a specific conflict of interest relating to the topic of the review.
Reviews should be structured:
Addiction publishes solicited and unsolicited letters. They may express opinions about articles published in the journal, report on a development, or comment on some issue of potential interest to the readership of the journal. They will normally be refereed. Addiction does not generally use letters to report new findings unless they extend findings of a paper published in the journal. Letters concerning articles that have appeared in the journal or are part of a sequence arising from such an article should normally refrain from raising additional issues beyond those already under discussion. If a letter comments upon a paper already published in the journal, this should be cited at the beginning of the letter. The author of that paper may be given a right of reply. Letters should normally be no longer than 500 words with up to 19 references.
Articles may look at any addictive behaviour from a distant or contemporary historical perspective. The article must be based on original historical research and not simply provide a review of material that has already been published. It must also have relevance to future theory or practice. The material on which the paper is based must be fully referenced. This category provides an opportunity for historians to publish where they will have impact on the addictions field. A length of 3500 words is preferred but up to a maximum of 4000 words is allowable.
Addiction history articles should be structured:
Methods and Techniques
Articles in this category may be invited or unsolicited. Articles for this category deal with methodological issues. Papers will include descriptions, assessments or comparisons of 1) methods of diagnosing or quantifying addiction or dependence; 2) any measures or instruments (biochemical, physiological, behavioural, questionnaire-based etc.) used to study addictive behaviours, their features, causes or consequences; 3) statistical methods; 4) methods for obtaining study participants; 5) study designs; and 6) discussion or investigation concerning the nature and publication of addiction research. The scope of the category is wide, ranging from state-of-science primers on methods that are popular but frequently misunderstood through methods that are emerging and underused to original techniques.
It is expected that the articles will be written in a style that will engage readers without specialist statistical expertise and have a strong relevance to research in the addictions. Methods articles should be a maximum of 3500 words excluding abstract, tables and references. Where a study is presented, the abstract should be structured (250-word limit) and include the following headings: Aims, Design, Settings, Participants, Measurements, Findings, Conclusions; in the case of non-empirical articles other structures will be allowed.
Further details for authors considering writing under this category are given in the editorial note, “Research methods and statistical techniques in Addiction” (Addiction 2012; 107(10): 1724-1725). Prospective authors are invited to send ideas and outlines to the Statistics and Methodology Editor (via firstname.lastname@example.org).
Articles in this category can be structured in a way that is appropriate to the content but must include:
Addiction publishes occasional monographs of 4,000-10,000 words, excluding references, abstract, title, tables and figures. Monographs constitute major pieces of writing that cannot be expressed within the usual length limits. Monographs might include extensive systematic reviews of major topics or a series of linked studies addressing a common research question. These articles will go through the usual peer review process; however, the editor will only accept monographs that are of substantial importance. There will be no appeals for rejected monographs, but rejection will not preclude authors from submitting papers based on the material as standard research reports.
Authors who are interested in submitting such a piece are advised to contact the Editor-in-Chief first via email@example.com. Otherwise authors wishing to submit monographs for consideration should submit in the usual way, but should add a note in their cover letter explaining that they would like the submission to be treated as a monograph. Monographs should carry structured abstracts (no more than 300 words) and include headings similar to those of research reports or reviews.
Monographs should be structured as research reports or reviews as appropriate.
Addiction is willing to consider major trial protocols. These should relate to major clinical evaluations of interventions aimed to combat addiction. Trial protocols of pilot trials and proof-of-concept studies (i.e. without any results) will not be considered (though Addiction will consider submissions reporting the findings of these as research reports). Trials must have adequate control for potential confounding factors and adequate sample sizes, use accepted measures of outcome that are of clinical significance, and specify the primary outcome variable and analysis plan and expected timeline for completion and reporting. We will only consider protocols relating to interventions in which there is a commitment to public sharing of the intervention content in full. Arrange abstracts under these headings: Background and aims, Methods, and Discussion. The report itself should follow CONSORT headings. The word limit is normally 3500.
Protocol articles should be structured:
‘For debate’ articles are opinion pieces up to 3500 words in length. They synthesise the research literature in a way that adds important new insights. They should be written in an international context and make one or two key points that are more in the way of opinion rather than fact. The point(s) will normally challenge existing thinking, raise an issue that has been neglected, take an issue forward that is currently being considered, or reinforce one side of a debate that is currently underway. It can concern matters of policy, treatment, assessment/diagnosis, theory or methodology and should be written in a lively and engaging style.
Approximately 3-4 commentaries will usually be commissioned to accompany these articles. Commentators will be chosen to provide alternative opinions on the debatable issue.
Once the commentaries have been accepted for publication, the author of the ‘For Debate’ article will be given the opportunity to respond to the commentaries, and the response will be published alongside the ‘For Debate’ article and its commentaries. ‘For Debate’ articles should follow the abstract and article style of reviews.
A commentary should add a further perspective or point of view to a particularly important research report or learned review. Rather than being a review of the article, authors should use the findings as a stepping stone to make one or two points of wider relevance to the field. Commentaries are commissioned by Addiction and are published alongside the paper on which they comment. A commentary should be approximately 500-750 words and up to 19 references. When commenting upon a research report or review, a reference should be made to this text at the beginning of the commentary and included in the reference list. There is no abstract, but commentaries should begin with a one or two sentence summary setting out the main point.
Commentaries should be structured:
Published at the start of every issue of Addiction, an editorial should be a significant piece of academic writing. An editorial is distinct from a review – it is shorter and provides a place in which one has the distinct aim of stimulating debate, identifying ideas, and pushing ideas further forward. It should make one or two key points that are more in the way of opinion rather than fact. The point(s) will normally challenge existing thinking, raise an issue that has been neglected, take a current issue forward, or reinforce one side of a debate that is currently under way. It can concern matters of policy, treatment, assessment/diagnosis, theory or methodology and should be written in a lively and engaging style with the point(s) very clearly stated. An editorial should also be written from an international perspective. Editorials should be under 1000 words and should contain no more than 19 references. There is no abstract but editorials should begin with a one or two sentence statement setting out the key point being made.
Addiction publishes individual commissioned series based on specific topics. These papers are normally limited to 3500 words.
The Addiction Journal Club provides an opportunity to present an instructive discussion on published work of any kind (papers, reports, books). Journal Club articles may involve a detailed critique of the publication, assessing how far the conclusions it draws are justified, or draw attention to a publication that has particularly important implications that have not been picked up in the literature. The issues must be sufficiently important for the field and require explication beyond what can be achieved with a letter.
In the first instance, potential contributors should send a brief description of the concept to Addiction’s head office (firstname.lastname@example.org). This will be discussed by the editorial team and if the idea looks promising an invitation will be issued.
The article need have no specific format but must include a 50-100 word summary at the front and in terms of general formatting and referencing conform to Addiction’s requirements. The usual word limit is 3000 excluding references.
Journal Club articles will be subject to peer review and may be declined if the review process identifies problems with the analysis, assumptions or argument. In some cases the authors of the original publication being critiqued may be offered a right of reply after the Journal Club article has been accepted.
Book reviews should be more than simply a summary of the book’s content and should place the book in the context of other literature in the field. Reviewers should aim to make them a ‘good read’. On occasion it may be appropriate for a reviewer to offer a negative appraisal of a book but vituperation is to be avoided. The books reviewed are selected to be of interest to the journal’s international readership and the reviews should identify what is good and worthwhile in the book for Addiction’s varied readers. Book reviews should be no more than 500 words and up to 10 references.
Supplements are issues of the journal that are in addition to the normal monthly run. We aim to make the editorial process friendly and interactive.
We can only consider supplement proposals that are sufficiently well developed that we can judge whether they are likely to make a strong scientific contribution. This means that the articles should all either be drafted or there should be sufficiently detailed summaries (at least the length of a normal abstract) to assess the methods and findings.
The first step is to make an informal approach to the Commissioning Editor Jo Neale via Molly Jarvis. This should state the topic of the proposed supplement, the likely length, summaries of the papers and the reason why it is believed that this will make a coherent body of work.
Supplements should normally include an introductory editorial written by the Guest Editor(s).
Proposers are normally expected to find the funds for the publication costs (see below) but if the Addiction editorial team believe that the issue is likely to be of particular importance and the proposer does not have funding, we may seek it on the proposer’s behalf from the Society for the Study of Addiction. Supplements are always free to access by readers.
If a supplement proposal is accepted, this does not guarantee acceptance of all the articles. Full acceptance will depend on the review process.
If a supplement proposal is accepted the following steps will then be undertaken.
Contracts: Contracts are not normally offered, but if individual sponsoring bodies require a contract one can be issued. Financial negotiations will be directly between the sponsoring body and our publishers.
Costings: Contact Silvana Losito at Wiley-Blackwell Publishers who will be pleased to give you an estimate: email@example.com. Silvana will need to know the approximate number of typeset pages anticipated. To calculate this from a typed manuscript you will need to do a word count of the text, divide the number of words by 850, allowing ½ to a full page for figures and calculate about 40 references per printed page. Prices allow for:
Timing: Production time from receipt of finally accepted material by our publishers is usually around 10-12 weeks, and that means the point at which bound copies will be ready for despatch. Please note that supplements are not allocated to a particular issue until all the final proof corrections have been received and the material is ready to be sent to press.