ISAJE statement on rapid publication of COVID-19-related addiction science
Board of Directors, International Society of Addiction Journal Editors
August 2020
The International Society of Addiction Journal Editors (ISAJE) is invested in the quality of published addiction science. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have noticed an increase in manuscript submissions to our respective journals. We have also noticed data concerning health interventions and outcomes appearing in the press prior to peer review without context or identification of limitations. Some reports on pre-print servers and in the literature describing changes in addiction treatment and prevention of substance use are based on unadjusted prevalence and clinical observations conducted without controls or more sophisticated methods, which can be dangerously misleading.
It is vital that we learn the impact of the pandemic on people with addiction, addiction interventions, and treatment. We need to know what has proven to be effective, and what has not. Clinical trials should be registered. Methodological standards should remain as high as usual. Unbiased peer and editorial review should happen as it usually does. Non-systematic observations should be limited to letters to the editor, commentaries, and editorials.
The manuscript review process is imperfect, and no journal can guarantee 100% validity. However, given the implications of the wide dissemination of inaccurate study results, now is not the time to relax publication standards. It is our consensus that doing so likely presents more risks than benefits.
Board of Directors, International Society of Addiction Journal Editors
August 2020
The International Society of Addiction Journal Editors (ISAJE) is invested in the quality of published addiction science. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have noticed an increase in manuscript submissions to our respective journals. We have also noticed data concerning health interventions and outcomes appearing in the press prior to peer review without context or identification of limitations. Some reports on pre-print servers and in the literature describing changes in addiction treatment and prevention of substance use are based on unadjusted prevalence and clinical observations conducted without controls or more sophisticated methods, which can be dangerously misleading.
It is vital that we learn the impact of the pandemic on people with addiction, addiction interventions, and treatment. We need to know what has proven to be effective, and what has not. Clinical trials should be registered. Methodological standards should remain as high as usual. Unbiased peer and editorial review should happen as it usually does. Non-systematic observations should be limited to letters to the editor, commentaries, and editorials.
The manuscript review process is imperfect, and no journal can guarantee 100% validity. However, given the implications of the wide dissemination of inaccurate study results, now is not the time to relax publication standards. It is our consensus that doing so likely presents more risks than benefits.