Emanate Publishing Logo

EMPAS - Emanate Proceedings of Addiction Studies (EMPAS)

Editorial Independence and Peer Review Policy

Editorial Independence and Peer Review Policy


Editorial Independence 

Emanate Publising House Ltd. (EPH) values freedom in scientific and academic practice and guarantees editors a platform where they can make independent editorial decisions free from undue pressures from any parties. 

EPH adheres to the precepts of editorial independence as set out in COPE’s Core Practices on managing scholarly publications.

For sponsored publications, sponsors are expected to be neutral and not exert undue influence over the editorial board members. Sponsors will also not be involved in any of the processes involving editorial and policy decision making. The name of the sponsor, its role and responsibilities will be disclosed in all published content under the sponsor’s auspices.

Peer Review Policy

The peer review process helps to validate and improve the quality of the research submitted for possible publication. At EPH, the peer review process is considered the cornerstone of reliable, robust, and validated scientific publication. All submissions for possible publication in EPH Series are subjected to a peer review process. 

Peer Review

The peer review process operates as a part of our commitment to quality for all published work. The peer review process helps to validate and enhance  the quality of the submissions. At EPH, the peer review process is seen as the cornerstone of reliable, renowned and responsible scientific publications.

Peer Review Types

EPH Series follow either single or double-blind review process. Each Series may differ in their peer review processes, and detailed information on peer review procedures can be found in each Series’ Code of Ethics page.

Single-blind peer review process: In this review type, the reviewers’ identities are concealed from the authors throughout the review process, while the authors’ identities are known to the reviewers.

Double-blind peer review process: In this review type, both the reviewers’ and authors’ identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Peer Reviewer Selection

All reviewers must possess the appropriate qualifications, adequate experience and knowledge in their field of practice and have recent publication experience. Potential reviewers cannot be co-authors or collaborators from the same institution/s listed on the manuscript. Diversity in reviewers (in terms of academic affiliation, gender, geographic location etc.) should be considered as much as possible while choosing reviewers.

Peer Review Process

The EPH Series publishes manuscripts that have undergone either a single-blind or a double-blind review process. The organisers/volume editors are responsible for the choice of the peer review process for each Proceedings.

By signing our publishing agreement, organisers/volume editors are deemed to have accepted that peer review process will be carried out in accordance with EPH’s Ethical Policy and Peer Review Policy which are outlined below.

Organisers/volume editors are free to use any conference manuscript management system for the peer review process of submitted manuscripts. Organisers/volume editors should follow international peer review standards by adhering to EPH’s Ethical Policy. The submitted manuscripts go through a peer review process managed by the conference’s own programme committee and external reviewers -when needed- selected by organisers/volume editors. EPr holds the right to request peer review reports at any time.

Detailed information on the organising/programme committee and reviewers can be found in the Frontmatter of each Proceedings.

In addition to that, we collect a peer review statement form describing the details of the peer review process of the manuscripts. These details are provided on the Proceedings’ main webpage and are available as CrossMark Record in metadata level for each manuscript.

To meet internally acknowledged, ethical scientific practice, all organisers/volume editors, and authors are obliged to adhere to the following principles:


  • Authors and organisers/volume editors should comply with our ethical policy and abide by EPH's ethical policy in all cases of ethical misconduct. EPH holds the right to investigate any suspicions of academic misconduct if the need arises.
  • All manuscripts should be evaluated fairly without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
  • Authors should act sensitively when using any terminology and/or images which might be offensive to any community, race, religion or ethnic group or violate EPH’s copyright.
  • Editorial decisions should be completely independent of any conflict of interests, and without any convincing support of reviewers, manuscripts should not be accepted.

Scope & Quality

Reviewers should ensure manuscripts meet the scope of the conference and satisfy minimum quality criteria:

  • Is the manuscript free from errors, inaccuracies, vagueness, misconceptions etc.?
  • Is the manuscript original, novel and of interest to the readership? Does it contain material that makes a significant contribution to the scientific literature?
  • Is the manuscript content relevant to the conference's theme and scope?
  • Is the manuscript written with in internationally acceptable English and appropriate academic discourse?
  • Does the manuscript follow a valid, rigorous and scientifically accepted methodology?
  • Are the research design of results in the manuscript consistent and properly presented?
  • Do the conclusions respond adequately to the research question/s and do the implications address the purpose of the study?
  • Are the majority of references current (within 5 years of submission & publication) and relevant literature? Have the references referring to a primary source been accurately cited according to the specific Series’ referencing requirements?


Technical criteria

Reviewers should ensure manuscripts meet the following technical criteria:

  • Is title suitable for the content presented in the manuscript?
  • Does the abstract range between 150-250 words while briefly summarizing the goals, methods, and new results presented in the manuscript in a single paragraph?
  • Are relevant keywords between 3-5 used to reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Does the manuscript adhere to the 5000-word limit (excluding the abstract, reference list, figures, or tables) which may be extended to 8000 words to incorporate the reviewers’ comments?
  • Are the tables/diagrams/figures embedded in the manuscript captioned and listed sequentially in the text? Are diagrams/figures essential and easy to comprehend by the readers?


For further details on technical criteria, please refer to the Manuscript Preparation Guide for Proceedings Authors

Editorial Responsibilities/Jurisdiction

  • To abide by the regulations and guidelines for editors stipulated in the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
  • To ensure submissions have not been previously published.
  • To ensure that publications do not contain any copied/copyrighted material from published or copyrighted work.
  • To ensure submitted manuscripts are free of fabrication and/or falsification.
  • To remove any inaccurate, false, misleading, obscene, scandalous, or unlawful text or graphic, with due feedback to the author/s concerned.
  • To publish, as and when needed, clarifications (errata), corrections, retractions, and/or apologies. For action on retractions of manuscripts, the editors conform to the guidelines in the Committee for Publication Ethics COPE (2019). Author/s are advised to familiarize themselves with these guidelines at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines.pdf
  • The organisers/volume editors are not responsible for the ideas, opinions, perspectives, conclusions, implications, and recommendations expressed by the author/s in their work.


Peer Reviewer Guidance

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles outlined in EPH’s Ethical Policy, and Peer Review Policy and COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Transparency in Peer Review

In adhering to the new trends and practises in scholarly publishing, we are working to implement a transparent and robust peer review process for all our publications in order to invest the process with more accountability.  


Peer Reviewer Recognition

Peer review is a fundamental part of academic publishing. At EPH, the peer review process is seen as the cornerstone of reliable, renowned, and responsible scientific publication.

Publons not only allows your contributions as a peer reviewer to be recognized by the academic community, but also increases the credibility and visibility of published material.

To gain recognition for your contribution as a reviewer and enhance the credibility and impact of our publications among the academic community, reviewers are encouraged to add their peer review records and endorse the EPH Series through Publons.com. 

Book and conference Proceedings Titles

No books in this series yet.
No books in this series yet.


No articles in this book series yet.
No articles in this book series yet.