Vote: Publish pending minor changes
[For votes to count, referees must reasonably explain why they voted as they did. Thus, please explain your vote. If you voted to publish pending minor changes, specify each change, why it is needed, and, possibly, how it should/could be done.]
The majority of recent psychedelic research has considered the use of classic psychedelics in clinical terms, or by considering individuals who microdose small amounts of these substances. Because the majority of psychedelic use does not occur in a clinical setting, this paper asks a new question and provides something new to the literature on psychedelics. The literature review is concise but needs to detail a bit more explicitly the scholarly attention given to microdosing as this is an important component of recent psychedelic research. It is helpful that the results are split up to indicate situational factors as well as reported reasons for both initial and subsequent use – this is logical and easy to follow. Also interesting is how the author relates the findings to the opioid epidemic, although I do think that this point should be clarified a bit and expanded upon. For instance, the author could make a stronger argument by indicating how, specifically, the opioid epidemic is tied to the psychedelic “renaissance” in a way that ties these two things together by identifying something other than their similar “timing”. I like that the author relates psychedelic use and experiences (and interpretation of those experiences) to the participant’s cultural backgrounds, social positions, life histories and experiences with various forms of marginalization – this is useful and important. However, I do think quotations from more respondents should be included to bolster this section and that some of the quotes that are used should be shortened to get at the most pertinent points of the participant’s statements. The implications of the study are clear, well-stated and important. Finally, the author needs to revise for several grammatical errors and typos. Overall, this is a good paper and I vote to publish pending these minor changes.