Author Guidelines 

Addiction will be published in online-only format effective with the 2023 volume. This is a proactive move towards reducing the environmental impact caused by the production and distribution of printed journal copies and will allow the journal to invest in further innovation, digital development and sustainability measures. Published articles will continue to be disseminated quickly through the journal’s broad network of indexing services, including Web of Science, MEDLINE and Scopus.  Articles will also continue to be discoverable through popular search engines such as Google.


1. Submission and Peer Review Process

1. Submission and Peer Review Process

Addiction welcomes manuscripts reporting original research on clinical, epidemiological, human experimental, policy-related, and historical aspects of addiction and addictive behaviours including, but not limited to, alcohol, opioids, stimulants, cannabinoids, tobacco, nicotine, and gambling. Addiction does not publish single clinical case reports. Addiction does not publish animal research – but authors of this research may wish to send their manuscript to Addiction Biology.

We strive to give authors a prompt service in terms of the time it takes to complete an initial evaluation of a manuscript, and if taken forward, completion of its peer review. Usually, we complete the former in 1-2 weeks, and the latter within 6-8 weeks. We can also fast track manuscripts with highly important findings that will inform practice and policy; here, our aim is to complete the review process within 2–3 weeks. Please contact the Editor-in-Chief if you have a manuscript nearing completion and you would like us to consider expedited review.

Once the submission materials have been prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines, manuscripts should be submitted online at

Addiction requires all authors to provide a declaration of interests statement.

We will not normally publish editorials, reviews, and commentaries that refer to a commercial organization, its affiliates, and any product or device, where the author has a financial connection with the organization or product in any of the following categories of conflict of interest: shares, consultancy, employment, honoraria for providing lectures, and any work on the manuscript that has been funded with support of a commercial organisation.

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) tools—such as ChatGPT and others based on large language models (LLMs)—cannot be considered capable of initiating an original piece of research without direction by human authors. They also cannot be accountable for a published work or for research design, which is a generally held requirement of authorship (as discussed in the previous section), nor do they have legal standing or the ability to hold or assign copyright. Therefore—in accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools—these tools cannot fulfill the role of, nor be listed as, an author of an article. If an author has used this kind of tool to develop any portion of a manuscript, its use must be described, transparently and in detail, in the Methods or Acknowledgements section. The author is fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the tool and for correctly referencing any supporting work on which that information depends. Tools that are used to improve spelling, grammar, and general editing are not included in the scope of these guidelines. The final decision about whether use of an AIGC tool is appropriate or permissible in the circumstances of a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal’s editor or other party responsible for the publication’s editorial policy.

2. Article Types published in Addiction

Research Reports

Research reports are expected to contain a quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods or narrative analysis. When producing a findings manuscript from these studies, we approve of presentation economy and judicious editing. Placing material in an appendix is often a good means of keeping a manuscript within limits; but we recognize that some manuscripts – especially those describing complex methods and findings – need more space.

As a guide on word length (excluding abstract, tables, figures, and references):

  • a quantitative short-report should not exceed 2,000 words (with no more than 15 references);
  • a quantitative research report from an observational study should generally not exceed 3,500 words unless the authors provide good reason;
  • the editors recognise that certain research designs and analyses - including but not limited to randomised controlled trials and other experiments, complex observational follow-up cohort studies, and qualitative and mixed-methods evaluations - need more space to clearly describe their methods and procedures, but authors are nonetheless strongly encouraged to not exceed 4,500 without a clear justification set out in a covering letter;

Authors wishing to submit longer reports should contact the Editor-in-Chief to discuss. 

Below is our specific guidance on the various types of research report we publish:

  • Reports on randomized controlled trials must concern a registered study. There are several international and regional registries including gov and ISRCTN. The front page of the manuscript should specify the trial registration number, the date of registration and when this was done. This should also be shown in the method section along with a link to the registry location if possible. Usually, the trial is registered before enrolment of the first participant. Any change to the protocol must be described.
  • Descriptions or evaluations involving interventions should use the TIDieR checklist. To assist review and for later reproducibility, studies on psychosocial interventions should include a link to a protocol or other materials, or submit supplementary material for the article’s on-line appendix.
  • Observational studies should be reported following the STROBE or TREND guideline.
  • Qualitative studies should be reported following an appropriate guideline (e.g. COREQ, SRQR, RATS, and CASP). Our guidance on qualitative studies can be found here and here.
  • Economic evaluations should use the CHEERS guideline.
  • Diagnostic accuracy evaluations of instruments and measures should use the STARD
  • Reports on randomized controlled trials should conform to the CONSORT guideline and use the appropriate extension (e.g. for pilot and feasibility trials; pragmatic trials; non-pharmacologic treatment interventions; multi-arm parallel group randomized trials; cluster randomized controlled trials, and adaptive designs). All items specified on the CONSORT checklist should be included in the main text of the report, even if they have previously been included in a protocol or registration document. It is not sufficient to simply reference such documents on the CONSORT checklist.

Please note that authors must complete the appropriate guideline checklist and submit this alongside the manuscript. Reviewers will use this to check compliance.

Pre-registration of analysis plans

Addiction encourages pre-registration of the analysis plans for the analysis of data and requires that all manuscripts report whether or not pre-registration was conducted.

A pre-registered statistical or health economic analysis plan presents a detailed description of the research aims and hypotheses, along with a detailed description of which measures will be used, and how these will be analyzed (including the level of statistical precision to be used for estimates) and who will be involved. The analysis plans for quantitative study designs will usually describe how missing data will be managed, and which sensitivity analyses are planned, and they may describe command syntax for statistical software. There may be some uncertainty, so the plan may set out some decision rules that will guide the approach taken for the analysis.  At present, it is uncommon for qualitative studies to pre-register their analysis plans, but we encourage authors to do so. Note that editors and peer reviewers look favorably on the reports that follow the discipline of pre-registration.

Contributors need to ensure that the description of research questions, hypotheses and how outcomes are described align with the stated (and registered) aims of the study. If there is any deviation, this needs to be justified. Pre-registration of a file setting out the analysis plan can be done straightforwardly using the Open Science Framework.  A link to a pre-registered analysis plan must be given in the statistical analysis section of the method along with the date of publication. Please note that if the analysis was done without pre-registration, the findings should be described as exploratory. More information is available here


Reviews are highly valuable communications for our readers. They draw together a body of literature to summarise what research has been done on a specific topic and are a source of knowledge. Reviews are expected to be registered (PROSPERO) and be reporting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A PRISMA checklist must be submitted as an additional file for review. All 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, the basis for integrating findings, and procedures used to evaluate quality and bias. Where possible we expect a suitable, bounded body of research to be subject to statistical meta-analysis; but we recognise that this is not always feasible, and a narrative synthesis should be the described approach. 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 recognize that reviews often have a lot of material to present, but we ask authors to aim for 4,500 words (excluding abstract, tables, and references). Very long tables may need to be placed in the on-line appendix.

Letters to the Editor

Addiction publishes both invited 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 should normally be no longer than 500 words with up to 19 references.

Addiction History

Articles must be based on original historical research, arising from archival research and/or the analysis of original documents as well as a thorough literature review that sets the article in the context of existing work. We expect the discussion section to offer some commentary on current and future theory, policy, or practice. A length of 3500 words is preferred (excluding notes and references) but we will consider longer articles.

Data Insight

Contributions are welcome from researchers who have analysed data from population-level data sets of acknowledged quality, from which they derive important conclusions that require little by way of introduction or explanation. Papers will normally be up to 2000 words with an introduction that may be limited to a brief statement of the research aims, rationale and relevant prior evidence. For further information, see introductory editorial note here


Addiction publishes occasional monographs of approximately 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 must first contact the Editor-in-Chief via [email protected] to discuss whether a submission is advisable. 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.

Study Protocols
Addiction does not specialise in the publishing protocols, and will usually only consider a trial protocol where the topic is sufficiently developed to likely advance clinical practice and policy making, and where best-practice in all areas of trial design is demonstrated. Protocols should relate to a registered trial and be prepared following the SPIRIT guideline. The CONSORT statement checklist on reporting and the companion guidance notes should also be followed to ensure that close alignment with CONSORT is built into the planning of the trial (see references). The word limit is normally 4,500 words. Authors of protocols should note that the journal places no requirement on them to submit subsequent research reports to the journal. Contributors to this section are encouraged to contact the Editor-in-Chief if they are uncertain about the suitability of their protocol for the journal. Protocol submissions will usually be screened before a review decision is taken using the below key methodology features.

(1)    A single primary outcome with a clear description of the basic clinical measure and how it translates into an analysed comparison variable (e.g. change from baseline, final value, time to event). If a clinical measure has been recorded at more than one follow-up time point, the primary comparison variable should be specified at a single time or for a single time interval. Outcomes at other time points should be specified as secondary. If supported, a repeated measure analysis model can be used for the primary outcome variable analysis, although the focus on a single key point is essential.

(2)    A description of the analysis plan will set out the specific methods to be used, particularly in relation to the primary outcome variable comparison, and should include a clear justification for why the method is most appropriate. The assumptions underpinning the handling of missing data should also be given, preferably in terms of the MCAR, MAR or MNAR framework. Sensitivity analyses around these assumptions are usually warranted.

(3)    The statistical power to detect an effect on the primary analysis variable should ideally be 0.95, such that both alpha and beta are 0.05, although in situations where samples are practically restricted, 0.9 power (beta = 0.1) might be considered. A clear justification for the sample size should be given, based on previous work. This should be based on an effect size expressed in the natural clinical units, rather than a generic measure.


  1. The SPIRIT statement
  2. The CONSORT statement
  3. Moher et. al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869

For other article types please see our Getting Commissioned page for more information.”

3. Article Preparation Support

Wiley has several resources to help contributors prepare manuscripts to the standard needed. These include Preparing Your Article (for general guidance about writing) and there is also a service to help with English Language Editing, as well as translation, manuscript formatting, figure illustration, figure formatting, and graphical abstract design (Wiley Editing Services).

For help in writing randomised controlled trials and other feasibility studies, we recommend the Paper Authoring Tool, an online application for writing research papers in the field of addiction. Before submitting your manuscript, consider checking it with Penelope, an online tool that checks the completeness of scientific manuscripts, by using the link below.

Open Access
This journal is a subscription journal that offers an open access option. You’ll have the option to choose to make your article open access after acceptance, which will be subject to an APC. Read more about APCs here.

Preprint Policy

Please find the Wiley preprint policy here.

Data Sharing and Data Availability

This journal expects data sharing. Review Wiley’s Data Sharing policy where you will be able to see and select the data availability statement that is right for your submission.

Data Citation

Please review Wiley’s Data Citation policy.

Data Protection

By submitting a manuscript to or reviewing for this publication, your name, email address, and affiliation, and other contact details the publication might require, will be used for the regular operations of the publication. Please review Wiley’s Data Protection Policy to learn more.


You should list all funding sources under Funding Information. Primary funding only should be given on the title page. You are responsible for the accuracy of their funder designation. If in doubt, please check the Open Funder Registry for the correct nomenclature.


This journal requires ORCID. Please refer to Wiley’s resources on ORCID.

Reproduction of Copyright Material

If excerpts from copyrighted works owned by third parties are included, credit must be shown in the contribution. It is your responsibility to also obtain written permission for reproduction from the copyright owners. For more information visit Wiley’s Copyright Terms & Conditions FAQ.

The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining written permission to reproduce the material "in print and other media" from the publisher of the original source, and for supplying Wiley with that permission upon submission.

Your Main Document file should include:

A title page containing 

  • A brief informative title containing the major key words. The title should not contain abbreviations (see Wiley's best practice SEO tips);
  • A short running title of less than 40 characters;
  • The full names of the authors - if authors exceed 20 please use a study group name or acronym;
  • The author's institutional affiliations where the work was conducted, with a footnote for the author’s present address if different from where the work was conducted;
  • Acknowledgments.
  • Word count (excluding abstract, references, tables, and figures);
  • Declarations of competing interest;
  • Primary funding;
  • Clinical trial registration details (if applicable).

Structured abstract (see further instructions below);

Six to ten keywords;

Main body;


Tables (each table complete with title and footnotes);

Figure legends: Legends should be supplied as a complete list in the text. Figures should be uploaded as separate files (see below).

NOTE: There is no charge for using colour, so please consider the use of colour to enhance the clarity of figures whenever possible.

Reference Style

This journal uses Vancouver reference style. Review your reference style guidelines prior to submission.

As a convenience to authors, initial submissions can employ any widely-used reference format. 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. Papers may include systematic reviews and one or two of the pivotal studies that a review has summarised.


  • 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.  In exceptional cases, abstracts for research reports can be structured under the following headings: Aims (or Background and Aims, if appropriate), Methods, Results, Conclusions. 
  • Abstracts for reviews if purely descriptive, use the following headings: Aims (or Background and Aims, if appropriate), Methods, Results, Conclusions. All others reviews, including meta-analyses, should use these headings: Aims (or Background and Aims, if appropriate), Design, Setting, Participants, Interventions (if appropriate), Measurements, Findings, Conclusions.
  • Abstracts for trial protocols use the following headings:  Aims (or Background and Aims, if appropriate), Design, Setting, Participants, Intervention(s) (and comparator(s)) (if appropriate), Measurements, Comments.
  • Abstracts for Methods and Techniques papers: Where a study is presented, the abstract should be structured and include the following headings: Aims, Design, Settings, Participants, Measurements, Findings, Conclusions; in the case of non-empirical articles, other abstract structures will be allowed.

Unless otherwise indicated, the maximum word length for abstracts is 300 words. See also our guide to writing conclusions in abstracts here


Please follow this guide to show the level of the section headings in your article:

  • FIRST-LEVEL HEADINGS (e.g. Introduction, Method, Discussion) should be in bold, upper case.
  • Second-level headings should be in bold, lower case with an initial capital letter.
  • Third-level headings should be in italics, with an initial capital letter.
  • Fourth-level heading.  These should be in italics, at the beginning of a paragraph, with an initial capital letter. The text follows immediately after a full stop (full point, period).

Please do not number headings.

Estimates, Confidence Intervals, P-values, Credibility Intervals, and Bayes Factors

Statistical parameters used to estimate an association must be accompanied by a confidence interval (the 95% interval is standard). Exact p-values from statistical tests should be reported. Please avoid use of the term ‘trend’ for analyses that fall short of the set level of statistical precision used in the study. Care should be taken to avoid the phrase ‘no difference’ when a tested comparison is not statistically significant since this could well be due to insufficient power. Null findings should be described as ‘inconclusive’ or lacking clear evidence for an effect. Calculation of a Bayes Factor or Credible Interval is encouraged. More information is available here.

Defamatory statements 

Authors should refrain from making defamatory statements about specific individuals or organisations, whether or not they believe these are justified.

Figures and Supporting Information

Figures, supporting information, and appendices should be supplied as separate files. You should review the basic figure requirements for manuscripts for peer review, as well as the more detailed post-acceptance figure requirements. View Wiley’s FAQs on supporting information.

Peer Review

This journal operates under a single-blind peer review model. Manuscripts that are considered clearly uncompetitive or unsuited to this journal will be declined without going to full review.

Reviewers have the option of disclosing their identity to the authors by adding their name to the bottom of their review comments.

In-house submissions, i.e. papers authored by Editors or Editorial Board members of the title, will be sent to Editors unaffiliated with the author or institution and monitored carefully to ensure there is no peer review bias.

Wiley's policy on the confidentiality of the review process is available here.

Refer and Transfer

Wiley believes that no valuable research should go unshared. This journal participates in Wiley’s Refer & Transfer program. If your manuscript is not accepted, you may receive a recommendation to transfer your manuscript to another suitable Wiley journal, either through a referral from the journal’s editor or through our Transfer Desk Assistant.


Requests for appeal will be considered only where the author makes a case that the decision is clearly based on a substantive mistake. Evidence will be required to support the case that a mistake has been made. An appeal will not be heard 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. Please address appeal communications in writing, containing a paragraph titled ‘nature of the substantive mistake’, to the Editor-in-Chief and send to the Editorial Manager: [email protected]

Guidelines on Publishing and Research Ethics in Journal Articles

The journal requires that you include in the manuscript details IRB approvals, ethical treatment of human and animal research participants, and gathering of informed consent, as appropriate. You will be expected to declare all conflicts of interest, or none, on submission. Please review Wiley’s policies surrounding human studies, animal studies, clinical trial registration, biosecurity, and research reporting guidelines.

This journal follows the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and handles cases of research and publication misconduct accordingly (

This journal uses iThenticate’s CrossCheck software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. Read Wiley’s Top 10 Publishing Ethics Tips for Authors and Wiley’s Publication Ethics Guidelines.

The journal supports the ethical principles enshrined in The Farmington Consensus.


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. For all articles, the journal mandates the CRediT (Contribution Roles Taxonomy).  For more information, please see Author Services.

Declaration of interests

These are required for all submissions. A declaration of interests does not indicate wrongdoing, but 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, cannabis, 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. Please note that it is increasingly recognized to be good research practice to make available or publish (e.g. on Open Science Framework) detailed analysis plans, including statistical command syntax.


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. We will treat plagiarism as serious professional misconduct and respond accordingly.


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.

4. After Acceptance

First Look

After a paper is accepted, the files the paper comprises will be assessed by the editorial office to ensure they are ready for production. Authors may be contacted if any updates or final files are required. Otherwise, the paper will be sent to the production team.

Wiley Author Services

When an accepted article is received by Wiley’s production team, the corresponding author will receive an email asking them to login or register with Wiley Author Services. Authors will be asked to sign a publication license at this point as well as pay for any applicable APCs.

Copyright & Licensing

Authors may choose to publish under the terms of the journal’s standard copyright agreement, or Open Access under the terms of a Creative Commons License.

Standard re-use and licensing rights vary by journal. Note that certain funders mandate a particular type of CC license be used. This journal uses the CC-BY/CC-BY-NC/CC-BY-NC-ND Creative Commons License.

Self-Archiving Definitions and Policies: Note that the journal’s standard copyright agreement allows for self-archiving of different versions of the article under specific conditions.


Authors will receive an e-mail notification with a link and instructions for accessing HTML page proofs online. Authors should also make sure that any renumbered tables, figures, or references match text citations and that figure legends correspond with text citations and actual figures. Proofs must be returned within 48 hours of receipt of the email.

Article Promotion Support

Wiley Editing Services offers professional video, design, and writing services to create shareable video abstracts, infographics, conference posters, lay summaries, and research news stories for your research – so you can help your research get the attention it deserves.

Correction to authorship

In accordance with Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics and the Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidance, Addiction will allow authors to correct authorship on a submitted, accepted, or published article if a valid reason exists to do so. All authors – including those to be added or removed – must agree to any proposed change. To request a change to the author list, please complete the Request for Changes to a Journal Article Author List Form and contact either the journal’s editorial or production office, depending on the status of the article. Authorship changes will not be considered without a fully completed Author Change form. [Correcting the authorship is different from changing an author’s name; the relevant policy for that can be found in Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines under “Author name changes after publication.”