What is peer review? Peer review is the independent assessment of your research paper by experts in your field. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper’s quality and suitability for publication. It’s a collaborative process where authors engage in a dialogue with peers in their field and receive constructive support to advance their work. Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

Peer review plays a valuable and essential role in upholding the high standards of scholarly communications and maintaining a journal’s quality. It is also an important support for the researchers who author the papers.

SAj depends on the hard work of reviewers, who are the ones at the forefront of the peer review processs and are the ones who refine each article before publication. The feedback and comments of carefully selected reviewers are an essential guide to inform the Editor in Chief’s decision on a paper.

The peer review process can alert you to any errors in your work, or gaps in the literature you may have overlooked. What peer review does best is improve the quality of published papers by motivating authors to submit good quality work – and helping to improve that work through the peer review process. 

Adèle Morvannou, one of two recipients of the 2023 SAj Best Peer Reviewer Award, says:

“Personally, I consider peer review as an opportunity to feel part of a community where its members collaborate to make scientific productions of high quality. But it is also a way for me to keep my mind sharp by cultivating a critical eye towards the literature, while having the opportunity to stay up to date with scientific knowledge and best practices. In recent years, I have given a lot of thought to how to provide feedback after reading an article in peer review.”

“It is not always easy as an author of an article to receive criticism from a reviewer. I personally think that the way to transmit these comments must be critical but argued, precise by giving examples and empathetic, while recognizing the contribution of each article. When doing the review I usually try to remember the good practices when as a clinician we give feedback to a trainee for example, this allows I think to have interesting ingredients for the authors to take into consideration the comments and be motivated to make beneficial changes for the article.”

To learn more about joining SAj as a peer reviewer, please email SAj@amersa.org.

The article, “Outcomes of State Targeted/Opioid Response Grants and the Medication First Approach: Evidence of Racial Inequities in Improved Treatment Access and Retention,” has been published in SAj.

In this commentary, the authors state that the opioid overdose epidemic in the United States persists as a public health crisis despite recent increases in funding and public attention. Nationally, overdose deaths among Black Americans have outpaced deaths among White Americans since 2019.

In the AUTHORS’ OWN WORDS, they relate the importance of their work:

“These mortality data demonstrate the importance of assessing racial equity within opioid-related substance use disorder (SUD) services. The current study examines racial differences in the St. Louis region for outcomes of Missouri’s low-barrier “Medication First” approach to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, aimed at improving access to and retention on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).”

“The overdose crisis is disproportionately affecting Black communities across the United States. Despite a significant need for effective substance use services, Black people who use drugs often experience substantial barriers to entering and maintaining treatment and recovery. In Missouri, the Medication First approach was developed and disseminated through STR/SOR funding with the intention of broadly reducing structural barriers to MOUD treatment to enable all people coming from a variety of life circumstances maintain their care. We found that despite these efforts, STR/SOR funding fueled racial inequities in OUD treatment access and retention in the St. Louis region, with proportionally larger enrollment and increases in MOUD among White clients than Black clients, and shorter treatment retention of Black clients than White clients. Critically, treatment initiatives aimed to better serve people with OUD must prioritize racial equity in the planning and implementation phases or risk introducing or worsening racial inequities.”

The article, “Factors Associated with Nurses’ Motivation to Provide Care for Patients with Alcohol Use and Alcohol Use-Related Problems,” has been published in SAj.

In this commentary, the authors state there is a high human and economic cost associated with alcohol use and alcohol use-related problems. Nurses have a pivotal role in addressing the needs of this patient population. Their study aimed to examine the correlation between nurses’ demographics/background characteristics, personal attitudes, professional attitudes, and their motivation to provide care to patients with alcohol use and alcohol use-related problems.

In the AUTHORS’ OWN WORDS, they relate the importance of their work:

“Although the prevalence of alcohol use and alcohol use-related problems continues to grow, healthcare systems are often not adequately prepared to provide care for this patient population. As a result, the alcohol use and alcohol use-related problems in patients are not recognized and thus their health needs are inadequately addressed in healthcare settings. Action to address this gap is critical given the scope of the human and economic costs related to alcohol use.”

“Compared to other healthcare providers, nurses often spend the most time with patients with alcohol use-related problems. Thus, nurses can be key partners in implementing strategies to promote the early detection and management of this patient population and can have a pivotal role in the quality of care provided. However, low motivation, defined as willingness and readiness to provide care for patients with alcohol-use related problems, including nurses’ intention to engage in the care of this patient population, and the negative attitudes associated with healthcare providers’ motivation (e.g., stigma attitudes) may be linked to delays in early recognition and access to specialized care, consequently resulting in poorer health outcomes. To date, few studies have examined factors that may influence nurses’ motivation to work with these patients.”

The article, “Co-use of Opioid Medications and Alcohol Prevention Study (COAPS),” has been published in SAj.

In this commentary, the authors state that while there is limited research in the field regarding the various dimensions of co-use of alcohol and opioid medication, particularly related to co-use and levels of severity, their research has shown 20% to 30% of community pharmacy patients receiving opioid pain medications are engaged in co-use. Co-use of alcohol and opioid medications is a significant risk factor for opioid-related overdose. Community pharmacy is a valuable yet underutilized resource and setting for addressing the US opioid epidemic, with an untapped potential for identification of and intervention for risks associated with co-use of alcohol and opioids

In the AUTHORS’ OWN WORDS, they relate the importance of their work:

“Notwithstanding the clear need for intervention services for co-use of opioids and alcohol and the potential impact of engaging community pharmacies, no current models exist for deployment in these settings. Therefore, our team has targeted adaptation of an intervention we previously developed for opioid medication misuse (called Brief Intervention-Medication Therapy Management [BI-MTM]). This adapted intervention would therefore be prepared to address co-use of opioid medications and alcohol.”

“Among the highest-risk behaviors for those taking opioid medications is co-use with alcohol. Conducting this study is critical to the field given that, to our knowledge, there are no existing pharmacist-led intervention to specifically target co-use of alcohol and opioid medications. Further, a study aiming to develop and test an intervention while gleaning an understanding of the organizational context of implementation of such an intervention has not heretofore been conducted. Results of this study will create an opportunity to leverage community pharmacists’ unique expertise in medication management, including medication interactions and safety. These results will further address a significant gap in the literature regarding the untapped potential for community pharmacist interventions that build on their trusting relationships with patients.”

The article, “Starting the Discussion: A Call to Enhance Care for People with Stimulant Use Disorder,” has been published in SAj.

In this commentary, the authors state stimulant use disorder (StUD) significantly contributes to substance-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. Overshadowed by the country’s focus on opioid-related overdose deaths, stimulant and stimulant/opioid overdose deaths have increased dramatically over the last decade. Many individuals who use stimulants illicitly or have StUD have multiple, intersecting stigmatized characteristics which exacerbate existing barriers and create new obstacles to attaining addiction treatment. Illicit stimulant use, StUD, and stimulant-related overdose disproportionately impact minoritized racial and gender, and sexuality diverse groups.

In the AUTHORS’ OWN WORDS, they relate the importance of their work:

“As with anything in medicine, we strive for progress, not perfection. Improving the care of people with StUD will require a multilevel response, and society, institutions, and individuals must all be open to change. Societally we must address stigma about people who use drugs, specifically those who use stimulants, and change the narrative in the media and public discourse that leads to fear and discrimination. Institutionally, we must commit to changing existing harmful and long-held practices and protocols that do not adequately meet the needs or serve people most likely to have a StUD. Healthcare providers must also commit to adopting evidence-based methods to care for people with StUD to move beyond creating a non-stigmatizing environment to one that is also engaging and responsive. Individually, all of us must re-examine our personal beliefs and stigmas about people with StUD and actively change our thoughts and behaviors. Words matter, but so do actions. Building a more inclusive and responsive addiction treatment environment for people with a StUD will not be easy, but it is necessary and long overdue.”