Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
17% accepted
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
173 articles
Manuscripts received last year
903 manuscripts
Open access status
optional
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
4.89
Five-year impact factor
5.47

Aims and Scope

Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines.

Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve the developing as well as the developed world.

Addiction’s scope spans clinical, epidemiological, human experimental, policy, and historical research relating to any activity that has addictive potential. In addition to original research,

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
4.5 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
5.2 months
Decision time immediate rejection
30 days
Average number of review rounds
1.5 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.5 / 5.0 (difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.5 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.8 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.3 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 43.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Based on the feedback received, the process was editorially vs. peer-driven, as all peer reviewers gave generally positive and encouraging assessments. The ultimate reason for rejection given was present from the first submission. Ethically speaking, if this was an issue for the journal, the manuscript should have been rejected in the first round instead of requesting we go through multiple rounds of review, telling us we did a good job, and then rejecting us. Now, our results are no longer timely, and we will have more difficulty publishing elsewhere.